Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ike Awgu (2nd nomination)

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. There is reasonable consensus. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ike Awgu

Ike Awgu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable minor local politician. The page also suffers from frequent vandalism and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Also, it appears that Ike Awgu edited the page himself. Poeloq (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article was in a vandalized state. Users Ikeawgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ikeawgu2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Rock8591 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) should all be blocked for sockpuppetry/vandalism/attacks. Deli nk (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Awgu may not be notable as a politician (that might be, in fact, why he left politics) but he is certainly notable as a journalist, and the article focuses on that. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the only edits by User:Ikeawgu consisted of undoing vandalism on this page. No COI there. User:Ikeawgu2 is already blocked for impersonating Awgu. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, it looks like I didn't properly sort out the edits of Ikeawgu and Ikeawgu2. Deli nk (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It appears that most of the article is a copyvio of this page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is hard to say whether it is the Wikipedia article or the ourcampaigns.com page that is a copyvio. The ourcampaigns.com page is marked as having been last edited on Oct. 23rd, 2006, and has the exact same text as an edit of the Wikipedia article that is dated September 27th, 2006. The problem is that we do not have access to edit histories for pages outside Wikimedia: only the editors themselves have access to that, and many of them don't even bother keeping one. The article has never been flagged as copyvio, even by bots, even for its first AfD discussion. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Point. The orriginal text of the article does not appear to have changed significantly. In light of this, keep per above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per all of above. Also, a page being subject to "frequent vandalism" is not a criteria for deletion. This page previously passed AfD easily. The only difference between that AfD and this one was the level of vandalism at time of AfD, which we should respond to through cleanup, not AfDing while an inaccurate snapshot of the entry is up. Orphic (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and semi-protect for 2 months. Deletion for non-notability was already covered in the previous AFD (and the situation didn't really change), and vandalism is dealt with by blocking users and protecting pages. If you want, you can put a note on the talk page that the subject of the article was removing vandalism from the page. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (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.