Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angaangaq Lyberth

Add links
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. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angaangaq Lyberth[edit]

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

Angaangaq Lyberth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a political figure not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. This states that he's a politician, but fails to state what political office he holds or held, and instead stakes his notability entirely on having been quoted as a speaker -- however, notability does not derive from being quoted as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things, it derives from being profiled as the subject of coverage written by other people. Meanwhile, for referencing it just uses a bullet-pointed list of sources without footnoting any of the body content to any of them, so it's impossible to determine the extent to which he is or isn't the subject of any of those sources (as opposed to just being glancingly namechecked as a provider of soundbite.) And even on a search for better sources, I'm still just getting primary source profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't held an international office. Speaking at the United Nations is not the same thing as being a national representative to the United Nations — the former isn't an "inherent" free pass over WP:NPOL at all, and there's absolutely no evidence that he was ever the latter. And even if he had been the latter, that's a diplomatic role rather than a political one, and thus isn't judged against NPOL anyway, Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed further below, the BLP subject didn't even speak at the UN. The source was misrepresented, as were most of the sources. We have one, rather flawed first person account (who gets names and titles of participants wrong), that he participated in this conference: Millennium Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. Cite: McIntosh, Ian S. "The UN Millennium World Peace Summit Of Religious And Spiritual Leaders". Cultural Survival. Retrieved 15 February 2023. Over 1,000 people participated. Literally anyone can walk in off the street, make any claims about themselves, and speak in meetings and on panels. There is a history of frauds and imposters using these exact events to then falsely claim in their C.V. that they were some kind of official speaker and representative, often for groups who've never heard of them, let alone chosen them as a representative, "at the UN". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LordVoldemort728, the UN representation should be sufficient enough for WP:NPOL. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no evidence of being a "representative" at the UN (which usually implies being a diplomat, which does not satisfy NPOL), at best it's possible he spoke on behalf of Inuit at a UN meeting or session of the General Assembly (although I see no evidence for the latter). However, this appears to be a book by the same person published by Penguin Random House (Germany) - whether there is a pass of WP:NBOOK, not certain. There's also this from 1975 from the Edmonton Journal, which appears to be the same person and is clearly SIGCOV. However, not to be confused with Jens K Lyberth, a Greenland trade unionist and politician. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books require reliable source coverage about the book, not just primary source verification of the existence of the book, to get their authors past our notability criteria for authors. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In heated agreement; hence "not certain." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that a source for the UN event was just added and it's problematic. While the site looks a bit better than a blog, the writeup is a first person account and contains major inaccuracies (misspelled names, wrong titles for people). It was one of many unofficial meetings that happen around the time of other UN events. It's common for all sorts of unrecognized people to speak at those events, including those who do not represent the communities they claim or who are not even Indigenous. There have been imposters who've spoken at those sorts of events, and then they've misrepresented it in their bios as, "Spoke at the UN". This is not an argument for deletion, just a note about these sorts of claims in articles in general. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article from the Edmonton Journal, I am not sure how that article denotes notability. It simply talks about him wanting citizenship and to improve housing standards through his place of employment, which is job. I am not sure how being employed by a regional housing authority is notable. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These pieces from de Volkskrant and Hamburger Abdenblatt are RS SIGCOV. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This from 1980 from the Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon) is also SIGCOV. There's enough material to satisfy the GNG, however, I will look a little further on sourcing around the different names to be certain. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Strong Keep. As per the following book, he was the leader of an Indigenous nation. A clear WP:NPOL pass.

-Bekoff, M. (2014). Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence. United States: New World Library. CT55555(talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC) (struck my own comment, reconsidering)[reply]
I see you are the user who is putting in the self-published sources for the unverified claims. Claiming he is or was the leader of an Indigenous nation is an extraordinary claim that will require solid, WP:RS sourcing, not (self-published?) opinions expressed in essays by non-Natives:[1] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit that said he was a community leader. That edit was citing the 2014 book Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence by noted scientist Marc Bekoff published by New World Library. Making improvements of articles while they are up for deletion is a good thing to do. Deleting content from reliable sources (diff) while the article at at AFD can be unhelpful. I do support the removal of the self-published other source.
I did add a tag about the accuracy of the article. There are bona fide concerns raised on the talk page. But your comments "I see you are the user" and "I see someone is now adding that unusable stuff back" are not necessary, everyone's editing history is transparent. Finding a source, using it to inform my !vote, then adding it to the article is the chain of events that tends to be encouraged at AFD.
Please consider, that if I understood your comments correctly, both myself and another editor have adding content from the same sources and you are singlehanded removing it...please reflect on that in the context of consensus. CT55555(talk) 21:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your opinion of that non-Indigenous author, any expertise he may have as a Biologist does not translate to other fields, and certainly doesn't mean he can speak for the Inuit. His opinions on Inuit leadership are irrelevant. Beckoff is not RS for this topic. Yes, contribs are visible unless they've been hidden. But often people glancing at an article will not go through edit by edit; they often won't have time to evaluate sources, and it can be useful to know if it's just one person adding a specific type of content. This is about policy. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the scientist's ability to write with authority on his community connections is of course agreeable. But your comment made it seem like I had added it from a self-published source and it was a legitimate published book, so I hope you can see why I felt the need to clarify. I think there is a middle way, I'm not sure, but "scientists claimed..." or something rather than delete it. CT55555(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand that this author is not qualified to speak for the Inuit, I'm not sure why you think the cite should be included, as there's no point to his opinion. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The author seems to have been gullible and simply repeated the BLP subject's self-reporting; that he is also a scientist (singular, not plural), a vegan, etc does not matter, as this is not his field of expertise. The source is not usable for verifying the WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and untrue claim that this newager is the (or even "a") leader of the Inuit people. There is more about these WP:REDFLAG issues on article talk. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking on this article has shifted twice. My starting point was that an article about an important Indigenous leader was being deleted. So I quickly added sources. As I added more, I learned that the claims are questionable. When I read the talk page, I realised they are probably controversial, when I read your words, I understand things more clearly.
All that said, he is still notable for what he claims, even if the claims are exceptional. I still think we should have something like:
The 2014 book Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence by Marc Bekoff includes claims that Lyberth...."
but I'm not in any rush to make that edit, and think we are now discussing content, which should be on the talk page. So I'll wrap this up to say, I think it should be included, but framed as claims, or disproven claims, rather than the article be silent (of course, assuming that can all be backed up).
Also, I apologise that some of my earlier "strong keep" stuff and edits were done before I understood the situation better. I do remain of the opinion he is notable, but more as a ceremony-seller than as a political leader. And I'm massively less sure of that opinion, remain open minded, as it's now a lot more like a WP:BASIC pass than anything about politics. CT55555(talk) 23:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in several books; all sources have not been exhausted. The article is short, but you have to start somewhere. Yuchitown (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found more material and added it, but not really enough to establish notability. Yuchitown (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Comment I did some cleanup on this in the past as it relied on self-published and uncited claims. I see someone is now adding that unusable stuff back. Sourcing this to adequate standards was a problem, as it wasn't always clear if the new age ceremony-seller and the politician were the same guy. This was additionally complicated by them possibly using the name of a deceased elder/ancestor, and some of the more reliable-looking sources not being in English. I know who the ceremony-seller is, as there were scandals about him leading dangerous sweat lodges in regions where that is not the tradition. I thought he was the same person as the politician, but one seems to be from Greenland and another from... Alaska(?). The other claims, like of him being the "leader of the Inuit" are clearly not true. If we can't get solid WP:RS sources that clear up these serious discrepancies, I don't think we should have an article on him. If solid sourcing can be found, and it is cleaned up, no objections to keeping a version; but the falsehoods must be removed for it to be kept. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now Considering Delete: Now that I've gone through the sources and seen how many did not support the text, weeded out the ones that either are not about him, but were about the other Jens Lyberth, seeing how exaggerated other claims are, and having had a contributor turn up and misrepresent sources once again, I'm concerned this will just continue to be a nn target for advert-like text and abusing the 'pedia to perpetrate a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Care needs to be taken to correctly source him, exclude puffery and inaccurate information. There is a source that includes a member of the Inuit responding questioningly to his claims regarding spiritual practices. He fibbed about a marriage proposal from Brigitte Bardot, his grandiose claims of leadership are not backed up. He can easily be sourced to selling ceremonies that are not part of his culture for a hefty price tag. These points are just as notable as his environmental work. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've gone from strong keep to keep to now undecided. Conversations here and on the talk page have clarified that he is mostly known for selling ceremonies, and the coverage about that is somewhere between failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I'm reflecting what the claim to notability is...speaking? Selling things? There are not the hallmarks of a notable person. Undecided and following the ongoing dialogue... CT55555(talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CorbieVreccan investigations into the sources and claims.  oncamera  (talk page) 11:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, see the Cultural Survival source actually added more clarity to the situation than the previous. There was no speech to the General Assembly. This was just a side summit. Those are pretty typical and the speakers there are rarely vetted for accuracy. The original article appears to be a conglomeration of multiple person's and the actual subject of the article isn't notable at all. Therefore I'm solidly in the delete camp barring some convincing evidence otherwise. It's one thing for an article to be about a hoax, it's completely different for an article to perpetuate one. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've thought a lot about if he meets WP:BASIC, but really there isn't significant coverage and I cannot see what his claim to notability is. We can confirm he exists, speaks about climate issues, and sells ceremonies, but we're clutching at straws here. My slow shifting of thinking from strong keep, to keep, to undecided to weak delete is informed by reading comments above and on the talk page. CT55555(talk) 18:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely on board with delete. At this point I just don't see the notability. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angaangaq_Lyberth&oldid=1139877640"