Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulaxingu Kambamjiji


 * 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 JERRY talk contribs 03:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kulaxingu Kambamjiji

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Great lack of notability; Google search turned up only one obscure result. Alloranleon (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)  A l i c e  ✉ 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep king of a kingdom in Angola and an active politician. Jose João (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if it can be established by reference to at least two reliable verifiable sources that
 * 1) he's a King (ie an hereditary royal head of a non-trivial traditional political or administrative unit)
 * 2) his name is spelt in a usual fashion for speakers of the English language
 * Delete per WP:V - the official policy which overrides the notability guideline. Only one source - which is not enough for an encyclopedia article. His name turns up nothing in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News etcetera. What is he the king of anyway? The article doesn't explain that at all, and it doesn't have an article. Could be sly bogus references and a hoax, or might not be. But WP:V remains policy, so this can't stick around in its current state.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm assuming the references are legit now. It's indeed true that WP:BIAS particularly applies to subjects relating to a place like Angola - third-world, non-English speaking.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete same reason as User:HisSpaceResearch. There is only one hit of the subject on Google, while the place Baixa de Kessenge doesn't even have one hit! Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How many kingdoms are there in Angola anyway? It doesn't say in the Wikipedia article on Angola. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Angola article kind of sucks (my bad). There really arent any kingdoms any more but back in the day there were a whole bunch. Jose João (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Comment I have changed my view due to some new info I found. Firstly, according to the cited source, it is actually King Kulaxingu, not Kambamjiji (that being the first name). Secondly, I have just found a reference to a King Kambamba Kulaxingo of Baixa de Cassanje, who died in January 2006, in an announcement on the UK Angola Embassy website. Based on these facts, there seem to be a chance that King Kambamba Kulaxingo is the same person as King Kambamjiji Kulaxingu. As a result, it would seem wise to further investigate the matter before deleting the article, as there might be more references on the subject. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, as well. The single reference in that book is too fleeting and obscure. Maybe they simply transcribed his name in a non-standard way and that's why we can't find anything more about him. But it's not a good idea to have an article for that one reference (other people could copy Wikipedia and confuse the situation even more). • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based both on the (admittedly limited) sources found so far and on the likelihood of additional sources existing, even if these sources are not readily accessible by most Wikipedia editors. I think this kind of thing is one of the reasons WP:BIAS exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepHow many times do we have to go over this? Google is not an indicator of notability. Angola is neither Anglophone nor on the continents of Europe, Australia or North America, making it significantly less likely to have large internet resources. It has sources and theoretically could have more if we look a bit harder onto non-internet texts.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:05, 5 January 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.