Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahason Orenge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per lack of Google hits, and trivial references. Nishkid64 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nahason Orenge
This article does not meet WP notability guidelines. This article is the first hit on Google (and appears from history to have been self-created by the subject). The rest of the relevant hits are law-related articles pertaining to his granting of asylum, pages culled from search stats, and one letter to the editor from a Kenyan paper, none of which either alone to in total are indicators of notability. MSJapan 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Question What is wrong with law-related providing a basis for notability? --Bejnar 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Then what is notable about this article, the individual, or the case? This is an important distinction, and there's doesn't seem to be anything notable about Orenge aside from his case, which is what I pointed out in the nom. MSJapan 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
- Nahason Orenge is notable because he is/was a crusading journalist who was considered enough of a threat for the government to arrest in violation of the Kenya Constitution. That alone might be sufficient. He also would be notable as an asylum seeker who established that even a government officially friendly to the United States is allowed to prove the asylum standard, "in fear of his life" for political reasons. --Bejnar 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think what you're esentially saying is that Orenge's situation is notable, but I can't find any notable accomplishments of his own, not even a listing of articles aside from that one letter. Also, one aspect of WP:NN is that people are not notable due to situations they are in. Moreover, Orenge has not received the level of coverage of say, Mandela or Biko. In short, my contention is that there are plenty of political asylum seekers, and that alone does not make them notable. MSJapan 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- (1)If you want someone to do something to be notable, being a crusading journalist who is willing to put himself at risk for the truth is one good way. I agree that he hasn't had as much coverage as Mandela or Biko did, but given the relatively short length time he was imprisoned compared to Mandela or Biko, it was a lot. His successful fight with Kenya alone should make him notable. (2) There are thousands of political asylum seekers each year. They don't make the newspapers. Orenge's successful, so far, claim is that political asylum can be sought against a peaceful, friendly-to-the-US government. That is why it was newsworthy and that is why it is important in our developing asylum jurisprudence. If Orenge did not have underlying crusadier journalist notability, then the Wikipedia article might well be just about the lawsuit and not about Orenge, but he does and we don't need two separate articles. --Bejnar 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think what you're esentially saying is that Orenge's situation is notable, but I can't find any notable accomplishments of his own, not even a listing of articles aside from that one letter. Also, one aspect of WP:NN is that people are not notable due to situations they are in. Moreover, Orenge has not received the level of coverage of say, Mandela or Biko. In short, my contention is that there are plenty of political asylum seekers, and that alone does not make them notable. MSJapan 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Question What is wrong with law-related providing a basis for notability? --Bejnar 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, no enough proof for notability. It might be factually accurate though, considering The People daily was critical towards then president's government and was owned by Kenneth Matiba, an outspoken opposition figure. Julius Sahara 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 71 hits outside of wikipedia is very little for a living person. Heck, I probably have more. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is established by the external links. What's all the fuss about? — coelacan talk — 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not (apparently) notable Avalon 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He is notable, although the article may not have done as good a job of establishing it as it might have. I have provided references to articles in the Long Island Business News and the New York Law Journal about Nahason Orenge's case, as well as updating the Wall Street Journal's Lawblog link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bejnar (talk • contribs) 09:29, 14 January 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.
