Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wambui Otieno

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 a non-admin keep with consensus endorsing the belief that the subject is notable. SorryGuy  Talk  06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wambui Otieno

Wambui Otieno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article stood out to me as not being worthy of an encyclopaedia. It doesn't establish who Wambui Otieno is, or why we should care. Other than it having the Category:Kenyan politicians at the bottom, I wouldn't even have a clue as to who they are. It is entirely without references, and for all I know is plagiarised from someone's personal essay on the person. This article might be worth keeping, but it needs serious work, and I thought that an AFD might be a good way to get it the work required. PS sorry for the mess ups, this is the first article I've nominated for AFD. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Requires clean-up and sourcing, not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Punkmorten (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Um, how do you know that it needs keeping? It doesn't establish notability at all. A google search gets a barely notable 5,340 hits, and the first hit is almost word for word identical to this article [1], which indicates, as I said, that this article represents plagiarism. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I did fix the page, per the information in Google hits. Her brother, a former foreign minister, Manyua Waiyaki does not have an article, nor does her husband Peter Mbugua. So why is she famous? Because she, aged 67, married someone aged 25. She had her 15 minutes of fame, back in 2003, and now she is a nobody. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Why doesn't her brother have an article? If he were the foreign minister of a European nation, he would, but WP:BIAS means that he doesn't. There's probably more than enough information in Kenyan newspapers and Wambui's autobiography to write an article on him, and I'd bet there's some decent biographical information published by a Kenyan reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Passes WP:V but maybe not WP:BIO because being notable for one event (WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS) is not enough to warrant a biography. There has to be evidence that either this had some sort of lasting significance, or that she was notable for her work as a politician, otherwise it'll have to be a delete.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – The women is notable! First three hits on Google News were (2) from the Washington Post and the third from the BBC. That in and of itself established notability. See here for sources [2][. Shoessss |  Chat  16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why should her notability depend only on "how important she was as a politician, not anything else"? Notability depends on how well she meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I did read it and have interpreted the policy, as it states in the opening sentence: “…When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person." Hence, keep the person as there is no article on the event. Call it a difference of opinion :-). Shoessss |  Chat  16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; international news coverage is frequently notable. So are founders of political parties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough when searched on Google. http://www.jendajournal.com/issue7/kariuki.html (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: Of the 5,000 Google hits, they almost exclusively talk about her 2003 marriage, as a 67 year old, to a 25 year old guy, an incident which gave her 15 minutes of fame, and is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article 5 years later. Corey Delaney threw a party which received worldwide media attention, and gets over 666,000 google hits, yet we decided not to have an article on him, because it was a momentary incident, and wouldn't matter to anyone years later. This is the same kind of case, except that we are already 5 years later. Dyinghappy (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As I understood it, we decided not to have an article on Corey Delaney because he was a kid who did some stupid stuff one night. Unlike that article, this article discusses the life-choices of a mature woman and is not a negative article. Moreover, she's notable outside of this, as the founder of a political party.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If she was a leader of a political party, then she's notable. But simply being a mature woman who can make her own life choices, even if controversial, does not in itself make her any more notable than Corey Delaney.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
'Sorry to say – Yes – it does, In that, she was not any older ordinary women, who made that choice, but a woman who was notable enough to generate articles in the Washington post. Shoessss |  Chat  21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't make her more notable than Corey Delaney. But I think Corey Delaney is plenty notable. The reasons we deleted Corey Delaney didn't have a whole lot to do with notability; the question as I remember it was whether we have an article on a person which would cover one stupid party done as a minor and present the entire life as one stupid mistake. The fact she's an adult and this is a major decision, not a stupid mistake, makes this different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't want to sidetrack matters too much, but Corey Delaney's party wasn't "a stupid mistake". He has gotten media deals and is in consultation for his own show starting next year, and is going to appear on Big Brother next year, albeit as a guest as he is too young to appear on the show proper. I am quite certain that Corey Delaney is very much proud of what he did. If it was deleted for being a stupid mistake, that was a poor reason. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • STOP - This discussion page is for the article as it pertains to Wambui Otieno. If you cannot contribute, as it relates to the article, please do not participate. Shoessss |  Chat  21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the sidetrack. Would it be appropriate for me to delete the side track? Dyinghappy (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just leave it, please, and continue the discussion about Wambui Otieno below. As I said, it's what information can be found per WP:V about her political activities that determines whether I think this article should be here or not.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is notable neither for her marriage to a younger man, nor for her unsuccessful candidacies, but for her 1994 legal case that established modern legal rights of wives in polygamous marriages vs. tribal law. There's a whole chapter on the case in this book. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you add it to the article? I note that you haven't got around to doing that yet. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources found clearly establish notability, whether they are for her political activity, her marriage or her involvement in the legal case found by Dhartung. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 4 February 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.