Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giniwasekao

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. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that this meets the notability criteria for inclusion. It is also the consensus that the lack of reliable sources precludes merging this with any other article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giniwasekao

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

This article lacks merit in accordance to Wikipedia policies. It lacks notability. I don't believe it adds any value to Wikipedia and by extension to its readers. It is not neutral and the main agenda is self glorification of an ethnic term and thus the tribe. Quinette21 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) You have not explained on what basis you proclaim that the article lacks merit, notability and adds no value. The fact that all the media houses in Kenya have covered this in one way or another should suggest that it indeed is of interest t oKenyan football lovers and Kenyans in general. It is not a requirement that articles be neutral. This article is simply an explanation of the phenomenon of Giniwasekao, which has gained popularity in Kenyan football circles lately. As explained in the article, usage of the word is not limited to Gor Mahia fans, neither is it limited to members of the Luo community. —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete:First off, remember to sign your comment using ~~~~. Secondly, Wikipedia is not A NEWS website. It is a requirement by Wikipedia that all articles always remain neutral. In fact Wikipedia would not be what it is today if it was not a neutral source of information. Just so you know, Neutrality is one of the 5 Wikipedia pillars.Wikipedia is also not A DICTIONARY or a slang, jargon or usage guide like what is depicted in this article. Quinette21 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Please note that the neutrality requirement is on point of view, not in content. It is not a requirement that the article try to appear neurtal by incorporating material that is of no relation to it.[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gor Mahia F.C., no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The independent notability is due to the fact that the word is used by diverse other entities than Gor Mahia FC. Merging it with the Gor Mahia page would limit its usage to Gor Mahia related affairs, while the spirit of the word is such that it is applicable in any situation where victory is imminent.[reply]

delete - no indication of notability, pure fan cruft. Definitely against merging without reliable sources throughout this entirely unreferenced article. Fenix down (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above on notability of this article. There are a number of references embedded in the article, take time and read them.Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If this articles qualifies for deletion, then the articles below ought to be deleted too based on your reasoning: Aloha, As-salamu_alaykum Schadenfreude, etc. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Masta, will you please as requested sign your posts at the end not the beginning as requested. Secondly, the sources you provide have little if anything to do with the chant. The second and third ones do not mention it at all and the first one only mentions it in the first sentence and could never be described as a source that discusses this "phenomenon" in any detail. Please provide additional reliable sources that should significant in-depth, non-routine coverage. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement that all the sources cited discuss the article in question in depth. It is not even a requirement that all sources cited mention the name of article. These citations are done in order to support the article, not to substitute it. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Masta, Info on Wikipedia is as good as the sources cited. When you go ahead to state that:
It is not even a requirement that all sources cited mention the name of article
— Masta1981Rasta
you are cementing the fact that the article lacks 3rd party coverage from reliable sources. Wikipedia does not act as the first place a topic is written about. It must have sufficient coverage by reliable sources. Quinette21 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinette, who says wikipedia is the first place giniwasekao was written? That word/phrase has been in existence since time imemmorial, it is just that it has lately acquired fame due to Gor Mahia fans. I have explained that many times already. The sources cited do not have to mention the name of the article, they just need to provide support for the content of the article, which these cited sources do. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Masta Rasta — your comment makes no sense, the article is about Giniwaseko, therfore the sources must support that phrase and its notability. Currently the sources do not. Fenix down (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix Down, if you cannot see the sense in my statement, then it is probably due to your handicap in perceiving sense. The sources do support the article, if in your opinion, they do not, then it is not for me to convince you. Do a little more reading for yourself. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the personal attack. To reiterate, the first source mentions the word Giniwasekao at the start of the article, but it is not an article on the use of the word or its prominence. The second two sources do not discuss Giniwasekao at all. Therefore there is nothing really in the article to explain why Giniwasekao is a notable word / phrase. That is why it is at AfD, the sources do have to establish the notability of the article subject. They do not. Five of the six paragraphs are completely unreferenced and all but one of the variations are completely unsourced as well. Not sure what you are finding so difficult to understand about this. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these three uncontested entries I earlier mentioned: Aloha, As-salamu_alaykum and Schadenfreude. Are all the paragraphs in them referenced? Maybe you ought to suggest they be deleted too? It is your opinion that the article is not notable, no need to railroad your opinion down our collective throat. You have made your case, however feeble. Now wait for the decision on deletion to be made. You are now sounding like a busybody. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Masta1981Rasta, It is encouraged that we don't abuse people and it is not right for stuff to get personal on Wikipedia.I believe you would not use the words you used against other authors if you met them in person or in an F2F meeting. You are just taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet which is a wrong thing. You have given a case of three articles that should also be deleted which I believe is guided by your anger. Revenge doesn't work here since Wikipedia is not a battlefield.In fact all the three articles you have proposed for deletion as well are well cited from reliable sources. If you feel they should be deleted on the grounds that they violate Wikipedia policy then go ahead and propose them for deletion. Once again remember the signature ~~~~ comes after your comment. I think this discussion should come to a close. Quinette21 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's close this discussion and await the decision on whether the article ought to be deleted or not. Your desire that this article be deleted is motivated by matters unrelated to the purity of wikipedia. I might appear rude with my words, but i am just reacting to the initial rudeness and condescension exhibited by you and Fenix. We ought to treat each other with utmost courtesy on this forum even if we do not agree with each other. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta, do you even read the comments? You have been requested time and again to put the signature at the end of your comments.It is not anyone's desire to delete any article. It is only that we would like to only accommodate encyclopedic content here and not everything. Quinette21 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (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.