Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunde Dhugassa


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunde Dhugassa

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

Nominated for deletion for notability issues. Individual sounds like he has a compelling story, but revolutionizing a student organization really doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Possibility for merge with school article exists, but probably not practical. WP:BIO/WP:Notability analysis follows.


 * WP:BIO Basic Criteria, For Sources Provided
 * http://oromiatimes.multiply.com/journal/item/785 - Disqualified Primary Source (he wrote press release)
 * http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=eco_article_eng&id_article=34083 - Subcription Required (unable to review)
 * http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/43086 - Questionable, mostly just press release above w/commentary. Probably fails WP:BIO.
 * http://ogqbo.multiply.com/journal/item/228 - Primary Source (his paper advocating secession)
 * http://www.cadtm.org/article.php3?id_article=2408 - Valid Proof he is secretary of the "Union of Oromo Students in Europe, Belgium Branch." Not proof of notability.
 * Fails WP:BIO Basic Criteria.


 * WP:BIO Politicians
 * Note: Considering "Politician" as a possible class for additional review, due to class office held.
 * Not a "[person] who ha[s] held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." Not a "major local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage."
 * Fails WP:BIO Politicians


 * WP:BIO Creative Professionals
 * Note: Considering "Creative Professional" as a possible class for additional review due to degree, profession, and thesis.
 * All "Creative Professional" criteria besides "the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" not under review because they clearly don't apply.
 * "Revolutionizing" a student union not significant enough to merit inclusion in encyclopedia. Great acheivement, but just doesn't rise to encyclopedia content level. There isn't even a source for that, anyway.
 * Fails WP:BIO Creative Professionals.


 * WP:Notability Analysis
 * The individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, see above. No objective evidence of notability has been provided that passed criteria for sources. Mostly just material written by the individual.
 * Fails WP:Notability.


 * Recommendation: Delete, nominator: Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did what I could with copyediting, etc. I'm afraid that I agree with the nominator on this point: "...compelling story, but revolutionizing a student organization really doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia". The California Chronicle source could hardly be called reliable, as it reprints a "most devastating" (source's description) press release from the subject of the article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Doesn't quite pass WP:BIO. Glass  Cobra  02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. A7. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: based on the facts presented, the subject appears notable, but the lack of a good reference is a problem. Apanews (African Press Agency) is a good source, but since it recently moved to subscription only archives we can't check that one. I would recommend a more thorough search for sources before action is taken. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Feel free to poke around some more. But...Of 134 GS-results, I've found nothing but word-for-word copies of his press releases, copies of his dissertation, Wikipedia dumps, and blogs that seem connected to his organization...in other words, nothing third-party and reliable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (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.