Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Ese Oruru


 * 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Ese Oruru

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nothing seemed to be notable about this low profile person outside this event .Subject of the article fails WP:NEVENT. Established editors need not be reminded that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: the article is not about Ese Oruru herself, but her unlawful abduction which has made nationwide impact with reactions from Nigerian leaders, and has been covered by several reliable media sources, some of which are included in the article. Please see WP:EVENTCRITERIA for more information. Stanleytux (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the article creator. I don't expect you to say "Delete". That being said, I don't see how this is different from every other kidnapping cases reported on a daily basis. Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's terrible, but it is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", so doesn't meet WP:EVENT. I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply, because the article is about neither the victim nor the perp, but the event. But in that case, WP:EVENT applies. In any case, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, as noted. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that this Kidnapping incident attracted huge media attention, with several Nigerian leaders, public figures, Nigerians on social media, youth groups reacting to it, is enough historical significance. Note that it is not all kidnapping cases that draw the attention of Governors, Senators, Human Rights activists, youth groups, and others. There was even a social media campaign #FreeEse etc plus the article has passed WP:GNG. The story appeared on foreign news media like Newsweek (article) and the BBC (article). This is the second most popular child abduction case in Nigeria after Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping. Stanleytux (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This case is unlikely to be a catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. That's not the case here. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, enacted by the 109th United States Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. In the case of Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping, 276 female students were kidnapped about a year ago, with no chance of survival and up till now, the kidnapping case is still generating media coverages. How on earth will you compare a kidnapping case involving about 300 students with several deaths recorded and the kidnapping of a single person with no death recorded. Wikipedia is not news. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and suggest that User:Wikicology reconsider this nomination. Even the simplest news google search on her name, here: Oruru has become a sort of poster child for the kidnapping, forced, conversion, and forced marriage of very young non-Muslim girls.  I urge [[User:Stanleytux] and others to expand the article, but I see no reason at all why there should be any question about the fact that this kidnapping is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many events like this receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that when I iVote in an Islamism-related AFD, Auslander and ParsleyMan follow me to the page. like houndogs on a scent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant to this AfD. If you feel Auslander and ParsleyMan keeps following you on Islamic-related discussion page, you can raised this at WP:ANI. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The involvement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in the wedding puts this into the unquestionable KEEP category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The involvement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has nothing to do with WP:NEVENT or any of our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the fact that the forcible marriage of a 14-year-old kidnapped bride took place in his compound drew national press attention to this kidnapping,forced conversion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per a simple google news search.BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Simple google search" is not sufficient for WP:NEVENT. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BabaQ presumably meant that the simple search turned up a massive amount of intense and in-depth coverage; certainly my searches did. Please WP:AGF, editors do use this sort of shorthand at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Simple google search" is not sufficient for WP:NEVENT. this is a simple google search. Is this enough to meet WP:NEVENT to you? If yes, try to create an article for the event and let see if it will be kept. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing BabaQ simply clicked news, producing .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Best known to them. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * note that it's still in the headlines .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to have fairly long-lasting impact evidenced by ongoing coverage and so WP:EVENT is met IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2016 (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.