Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gitaka


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilana | Parlez ici 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gitaka

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsure about this article... Seems not notible  RT |  Talk  09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  My gut is telling me this is a WP:HOAX after finding no sources where this person is mentioned online. I'm not saying only online sources are valid sources, but I can only seem to locate another author by the same name who is currently still publishing as late as this year. The strange formatting of the article reminds me of WP:SPAM But I don't "get" what they might be spamming, I'm just drawing attention to the very odd way this article is formed.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In light of the hard work that people have done researching real world sources on this AfD I'm going to have to say delete.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete  (change to Neutral per discussion below). I don't think it's a hoax, it seems to be an obituary/memorial notice, probably by a relative. Unencyclopedic tone could be fixed, but no evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, like I said my thoughts were just speculation. My actual arguments were about sourcing.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * keep  Interesting.JohnCD, I think you have probably mis-categorised the piece.It is a compressed factual biography which is  legit on the wiki... there are countless examples.About the more relevant issue of notability,with the growing world wide participation of the wiki, you must consider that what is all the rage in sunny california will probably mean zilch in Nairobi, and vice versa... as for Torchwood: sometimes things are exactly what they claim to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.71.62 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)  — 81.111.71.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sources That still leaves the question of reliable sources? Do you have anything we've missed? Whether it happens in California or Nairobi we still require proper citations to insure correct information is represented on the wiki.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per JohnCD above. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The article does provide references to two books which supposedly discuss the subject. If the coverage of him in those books is significant, the article should probably be kept. I have cleaned up the formatting somewhat and removed some sentences which were not in encyclopedic style to help editors judge the article on its merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wish we knew what was in those books. That's a big downfall of the wired world.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At least one of them is available at my local library. I'm not promising that I will get around to looking at it before the AfD period is up, but anyone else who might manage to look them up should comment here as to whether the subject is a major figure in them or just mentioned incidentally. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Maloba book is in a library near me, but their on-line catalogue shows its status as "In Transit" so I don't know when I can get at it. Changed my !vote above to Neutral. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I had the time to look in to this at the library. Where did those sources come from? How do we know he's mentioned in them?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am Assuming good faith unless it is proven otherwise.  I am not sudjesting that we don't check, however I am saying that to nominate delete because there is a chance that he may not be in the books referanced seems harsh .Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first off my delete is slashed out. Secondly, I don't think it's a matter of good faith, I'm really asking where did the sources come from. How were they found. Did someone use Amazon? Was it google books? This is a valuable piece of information to help in other AfDs.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, It does sound a little sarcastic in the reread which wasn't my intention. I was explaining my thought prossess, and not really commenting on yours.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  keep -Unfortunately in editing the piece, metropolitan90, has been very subjective in what material to include.He seems to have deliberately left out aspects of the piece that accurately potrayed the reality and shame that was this colonial occupation.Why? In so doing, he has robbed the character some of his depth and authenticity. It seems to me the piece was a description of the era through the actions of one its principal players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.71.62 (talk • contribs) — 81.111.71.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  I struck the second "keep" from this IP as lending an impression of more variant support than may exist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with my edits, please be bold and put back the content that you think should have been kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, I must admit that it does now read more coherent and(/but) mainstream,so on the balance,I vote to leave it like it is, until such a time i can fittingly include previous material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.71.62 (talk • contribs)
 * keep If there are 2 hard books referancing him, (with more sources to come) he probably is notable. the Web based serches don't suprise me, since African Gurrellas havn't been using the internet as much as other revolutionary groups.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that logic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep historical figure of importance in his country.DGG (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is sourced to two books. We should assume good faith and take that as confirmation of notability unless and until someone finds that those books don't provide significant coverage. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones (and often more so). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have now got access to a copy of the Maloba book, and I cannot find Gitaka in it. I have not read the whole book, but I have skimmed a good deal of it: he is certainly not in the index or in the pages pointed to by the index entries on Lari massacre or Leadership, Mau Mau. My vote stays "neutral". Can anybody find the Majdalany book, which the article explicitly says mentions Gitaka? JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article stinks more and more; I've looked in the book written by David Anderson on the Mau Mau and there doesn't seem to be anything.--Aldux (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete All evidence seems to point to this article being created by a dormant account that has made just one edit, this one. The references appear to be bogus: in Google.books, while there isn't the snippet preview option for these 2 books, it is possible to discover their content through a general search, and from this it seems that the word "Gitaka" is not present in either books.--Aldux (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. At this point, I think the burden of proof has shifted. Several good faith (and above and beyond) efforts to verify this information have failed. I believe it should be deleted for failing WP:V, with no prejudice against recreation in the event that an online source is located or an editor with an established history of contribution can verify that it exists in print. I'm not keen on discriminating against new contributors, but as it seems very plausible at this point that someone may be attempting to perpetrate a hoax, I believe that this requirement is reasonable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.