Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler Uunona: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:17, 10 December 2020

Adolf Hitler Uunona

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local councillors are rarely notable. In this case, he has received some coverage but it lacks depth and is all related to his unusual name, taking this into WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E territory Valenciano (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Valenciano (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it needs expansion. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 01:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this politician meets WP:NPOL or even WP:BASIC Spiderone 13:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is a stub and doesn't contain much information, this article should be kept as Adolf Hitler Uunona is figure who has had a recent surge in popularity due to his unconventional name and some information is better than no information. Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it got too many attractions from news sources. Although it's a stub, as Unofficialwikicorrector pointed out, some information is better than none.--Ahmetlii (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here remains WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Yes the subject has received a bit of brief notice but it's all connected with his unusual name. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage.

None of the arguments above address that. "It needs more sources" is not a valid keep argument as it could be made about any AFD. "Some info is better than nothing" is answered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Recent surge in popularity" is answered by WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Are reliable sources going to be covering this person a week or two from now? Highly unlikely. While there are lots of sources, none seen to go beyond his unusual name, how he got it and how he doesn't support his namesake. It's textbook WP:BLP1E. Valenciano (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real "here today, gone tomorrow" story. We have to be careful on Wikipedia that we're not eager to host every viral news story like we've become Buzzfeed or TMZ all of a sudden. Yes, there is much coverage of this man and his election. Yes, there are a good number of sources. But is he notable? Are all politicians automatically notable? Has he achieved enough to warrant his own article beyond his name, something he had no control over? I am wary about giving articles to each and every person who gets 15 minutes of fame, and I'm a deletionist at heart, so maybe this curiosity should be viewed through longer-term glasses. Will we be talking about the 2020 Adolph Hitler in 5 or 10 or 20 years time? Of course not. doktorb _words^deeds 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doktorbuk, I mean, we also have Adolf Lu Hitler Marak, and looks like BBC has coveraged the person. I understand your point, but then it should be deleted later. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Lu Hitler Marak is notable because he was a government minister and Assembly member, not because of his name. Valenciano (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Wikipedia also has the article András Arató, which is relevant for no reason other than being a famous meme who appeared in multiple news sources. The same happened with Uunona, who is currently receiving coverage from multiple news sources over the world.Seekallknowledge (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. It's a very obvious WP:BLP1E. Less Unless (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GNG, Hitler has sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to justify the existance of the article. While it may be a stub now, there is more to come no doubt. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons user "The C of E" pointed out. Seekallknowledge (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a local level politician who is not notable, and passing voerage based on being the name sake of the most evil man in the 20th-century does not change the fact he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until further coverage establishes lasting and significant notability, this person is no more noteworthy than any of the syndicated "and finally..." or "news of the weird" or "dumb criminal" stories usually placed at the end of a newscast or newspaper to get some extra ad clicks or give the viewer some chuckles before heading to bed. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's been expanded to include more than a few sentences, as it stands now the article is larger than most biographical articles on Wikipedia. Regarding notability - the page exists on 5 other language versions of wikipedia. CoronaOneLove (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are valid keep arguments. On the contrary they are arguments specifically discouraged in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The length argument is covered by WP:PLENTY. The interwiki links argument is covered by WP:OTHERLANGS: other Wikipedia projects have different rules for inclusion so what can be fine there is often not here and vice versa. Neither is proof of notability.. Valenciano (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The length argument was specifically a responce to others mentioning the article's length/the fact that the article is a stub in their comments. The WP:OTHERLANGS rule (like most other wikipedia rules TBH) has been deprecated in practice if not in law in several discussions i've seen on wikipedia in the past year, including on the In The News page. Also, as an additional 3rd argument I wanna say that we have a plenty of articles about minor politicians in the countries where the wast majority of English language editors are from (e.g. USA, Western Europe) so deleting this one would be an example of systemic bias. CoronaOneLove (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias is an issue in general, but not here. The minor politicians we have articles on tend to be members of national or state assemblies. Uunona is neither of those, he's a local councillor for an area of just over 4,000 people. Articles on local councillors, whether USA or elsewhere are routinely deleted (WP:POLOUTCOMES.) Here's a recent example (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bobby_Wilson_(Pennsylvania_politician)) where a councillor for a district of 35,000 people (9 times as many as Uunona represents) was deleted. Valenciano (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a textbook WP:BLP1E. This politician does not pass WP:NPOL Spiderone 13:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to people who cite the 1 event rule: have you actually thought about this argument? Lee Harvey Oswald (or his killer, to that matter) is known for only 1 event, yet no one seems to be trying to delete them. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CoronaOneLove:: The two subjects are not equivalent: See WP:BIO1E. One has had enduring, lasting coverage. The other has a few lines in ink due to a funny name. How many books have been written about Mr. Hitler Uunona? How many feature length documentaries will be released long after his death? The fact that some Wikipedians trip over themselves to slavish record every viral click-bait piece of churnalism that gets regurgitated from Toronto to Timbuktu for 24 hours doesn't mean the subject merits permanent inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. Should this 3 year-old named Adolf Hitler have his own article because the news covered it? Wikipedia is expressly not a newspaper and not for everything and doesn't need to churn out fresh content every day to increase ad revenue. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Makes no sense to delete it. It's an article about a notable person it doesn't matter how the person achieved this notable status. It's on news sites around the world and this wiki gives context/information about this person. TheGroninger (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This story is becoming quite well known in the Western world, and as such it would technically make Mr Unnona a celebrity. As part of Wikipedia's committment to proper information, this page will help dispell any misconceptions about the name, while also providing a background for the man in question, for both international readers and those living in Namibia Ataböy1936 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "The C of E" passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local politician with an unusual name who received a smattering of coverage on the interwebs. There is literally nothing here. It's not close. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020
- The simple fact he is a local politician makes him notable enough to have an article. Even more so with all the media coverage. There are multiple european and american local politicians who have articles, even though they are only notable for being local politicians, for example, Alfred Rapp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekallknowledge (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local politician ≠ automatically notable, not by a long shot (conversely, it doesn't make him automatically non-notable either). There has to be something more. A burst of news coverage all tackling the "Hah, this guy has a funny name, but he isn't planning world domination tee hee" angle isn't it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is the purpose of Wikipedia meerely to promote articles according to their popularity? If Wikipedia is striving to be an alternative to Britannica then it must include obscure or specialist articles that would be of use to an academic researcher or professional as well as a browser who would be interested in this person due to the news. The article needs to be expanded; that applies to many articles which are refrred to as 'stubs'. Argueably trivial articles such bios on unknown sports players or soap opera characters are not called to be deleted. (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep for now - I will support keeping it for now, as the subject has received plenty of media coverage. However, if this is, as someone previously stated, just a one-off story that will quickly be forgotten, I would be open to supporting deletion, instead. Fernsong (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - BLP1E seems to be the key bit here. We know the individual has lots of sources, but as they clearly don't meet NPOL, their notability instead rests on the naming event. While it has rippled out, nowhere that covered him seems to have a lasting coverage of doing so - a genuine 15 minutes of fame example. If he becomes an ongoing example of unfortunate names, then recreation would no doubt be in order. But we don't pre-emptively retain, especially BLPs. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added a book source from 2007 which mentions him. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions his name in a list of Namibian politicians. It is about as substantive as using the phone book as a reference. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think two different things must be kept apart:
1. The unusual name. In my view this is entirely run-of-the-mill, not encyclopedic, not establishing notability, and not warranting an article here. However, if an article exists anyway, a paragraph about it can be included.
2. The office he holds since 2004. This is a more general question. Constituency councillors in Namibia sit in the Regional Council, and each Regional Council elects 3 people for the National Council, Namibia's upper house. The way I read WP:NPOL, only those who are selected in this way become notable. The thing is, we do not know yet who will be elected by the Oshana Regional Council. --Pgallert (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may seem like a curiosity - but based on reliable sources and notability there seems to be no issue at all.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources that would confer notability. Would there be an article here if he was called, say, John Jones? No, there would not. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an article about Hitler's name. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Missvain|Missvain]] ([[User talk:Missvain|talk]]) 01:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Adolf Hitler Uunona]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
 *'''Delete'''. Local politician with no ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would confer notability. Would there be an article here if he was called, say, John Jones? No, there would not. [[User:Dylanfromthenorth|Dylanfromthenorth]] ([[User talk:Dylanfromthenorth|talk]]) 10:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Merge''' with an article about Hitler's name. [[Special:Contributions/94.175.6.205|94.175.6.205]] ([[User talk:94.175.6.205|talk]]) 14:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)