Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:26, 7 July 2008

Malik Abongo Obama

Malik Abongo Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The person known by various news organizations (eg----

1. The Nation (Nairobi),
2. The Associated Press, and
3. Media Matters for America)----as Malik Obama, is, according to
4. ABC News, the older half-brother of Barack Obama, whom, as Barack notes in
5. Dreams from My Father, is also known to other members of the extended Obama family as "Roy" or "Abongo," as he has also been termed by
6. the Chicago Sun-Times.

• "In Obama's book Dreams of My Father, interestingly enough, he writes about meeting Malik as an adult: 'I checked into the cheapest room I could find and waited. At nine, I heard a knock. When I opened the door, I found a big man standing there with his hands in his pockets, an even-toothed grin breaking across his ebony face. "Hey, brother," he said. "How’s life?" In the pictures I had of Roy, he was slender.'"----JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (...with the underlining of stuff of course mine :^)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Note: I know others will advocate for this article's deletion, since the WP bio only dealing with the sources for Abongo Obama had only been deleted yesterday evening.

• KEEP. Barack's half-brother Malik merits inclusion (as I would support the inclusion of a bio of the half-brother of Bill Clinton, Roger Clinton, Jr., who has likewise been mentioned in multiple news sources). — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• MERGE. I change my "vote" to a merge with a new article for Obama Family or some such, as suggested by brenneman et al. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. This article was deleted about an hour ago (under slightly different title). It's possible the bio figure may become more notable in the future, and merit an article. But I don't thing there's been such a change in the last hour. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama LotLE×talk 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've modified my vote to just "delete". Although I think it is a clear A4 speedy candidate, the closing admin of the prior AfD has stated that although he agrees on A4 eligibility, WP:BITE lets us considers this a "WP:DRV by other means". See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recreation_of_article_that_just_finished_AFD_Malik_Abongo_Obama. I'm happy to WP:AGF on this, so merely support non-speedy deletion.LotLE×talk 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a speedy candidate. If we assume "Malik Abongo Obama" is the same person as "Abongo Obama" then this is not an exact recreation. The recreated article, if someone adds the sources, potentially overcomes the notability objection on which the earlier article was deleted. We ought to consider the full range of sources when judging notability, something that was not done in the earlier debateWikidemo (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a pretty borderline case. There are a couple of sources where he features prominently, but I wouldn't consider Barack Obama's memoir to be evidence of notability. An important thing to remember is that Malik is not notable because his brother is; notability is not inherited. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons expressed by LotLE; this article was just deleted after a thorough discussion because the overwhelming sense of the AfD was that the subject is not notable at this time according to Misplaced Pages standards. Notability is not inherited and the references listed do not attest to any independent notability. Tvoz/talk 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as newly sourced it falls well within the WP:BIO standard of notability. Substantial coverage in a number of major reliable sources (feature-style articles about the individual in top U.S. newspapers), over a period of at least four years so it's no mere campaign issue or flash in the pan. Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A4. It was already marked as an A4 and someone remove the tag. However it still qualifies as the article was already deleted under a slighly different name not a couple of hours ago after a 5-day AFD -Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama. If one disagree's with an AFD one should go to WP:DRV rather than recreating the article. Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a mess now, isn't it? I can only apologise that RL prevented from doing the follow-up conversations that would have prevented this... Regardless:

• This article is a candidate for speedy deletion, it is identical in substance to the earlier article.
• There are additional sources external links added to the bottom of the article, but at this stage they are just acting as window dressing and there is no evidence that anything was added to the article from them. It's not a good idea (editorially speaking) to just dump some links in to attempt to stave off deletion.
• That being said, this same request could have gone through "channels" at deletion review by being re-created in user space. A cogent argument there would have been "additional sources provided late in deletion debate."

The only difference would be that this article is visible (and may be improved) during the time an additional examination takes place. So, my opinion as the closing administrator is that this debate should be allowed to have it's "time in court" despite that not being strictly by the rules. My opinion as a random editor is that this article does not merit inclusion on its own, but that a section within Obama Family or some such would serve. - brenneman 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete (A4)-- Jesus, this thing is like a weed! We just deleted it like an hour ago. I agree with brenneman, let's merge with Obama Family and get it over with already. L'Aquatique 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This article and AfD is kind of out of process, but it's notabie and is only going to get more and more notable. The previous AfD had a bunch of deletes before it was conclusively shown to be notable, but it was too late. Probably should take this to WP:DR:deletion review or we can be reasonable and just keep it this time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, it doesn't appear to be a Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion candidate since all those articles were linked to under references. I'll quote in case any one is wondering "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The reason for deletion was notability, and it was addressed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If he gets "more and more notable" as you predict he is "going to"- although you don't say how it is that you can see into the future - someone can write an article that reflects his notability and it will be considered on its merits. This one does not. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, this is blabant readding of deleted content in contradiction with an afd finished just few hours ago. I'd suggest closing this afd and turning the link into a redirect. --Soman (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move past calls for speedy deletion? It's clearly not a candidate and any speedy deletion would be contested or simply re-created. The question here is notability. Based on the sources in the article as it now stands, is this person notable. He satisfies WP:BIO so I think it's up to anyone who claims he is not notable to argue why despite satisfying the notability guideline he is nevertheless non-notable. Wikidemo (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrr, I'm put in the unfortunate position here of arguing against what I've said I want done: It really is a candidate for speedy deletion.

• The content of the article is almost identical, it's just that a couple of external links were added to the bottom. No admin would be expected to perform that extensive a job that he'd follow every link in an article to insure that the conditions that the article were deleted under still apply. That's why we have deletion review.
• If the "new" article had incorporated new material from these links (and used them as refs) then the above would not be true.

brenneman 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, merge, or userfy. Someone add more content so its no longer fits the criteria for speedy, as aaron hints at. — _Maggot 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates