Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona

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. Sandstein 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Uunona[edit]

[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)

This was the subject of a contentious no-consensus AfD in December where the closing admin found the delete arguments stronger than the keep. Since then, it's been at the core of a fair amount of controversy regarding its appropriateness, particularly in the context it was apparently written for a DYK hook that was later deemed inappropriate.

The subject is at best extremely borderline for WP:NPOL, an SNG that has been interpreted as exclusionary as well as inclusionary, and quite likely doesn't fit it at all. What coverage he has is quite certainly WP:BLP1E -- and I say that with significant intent, as someone who in the vast majority of situations is on the critical, "that's not a 1E" side and wrote the damn essay on it. Uunona hits every hallmark for BLP1E, specifically the fact it's more or less a by-proxy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is, in his personal life, low-profile. He is covered only in the context of a single event -- his name -- that is, independently, not exactly something where he has a significant role (he certainly wasn't Adolf Hitler himself, and it's not something he particularly chose). He does not seek out attention for his name and indeed is actively ashamed of it. He actively opposes media attention on the topic, refuses interviews, and otherwise shows every hallmark of wanting the matter to be low-profile. Essentially: BLP1E is at its core a proxy BLPREQUESTDELETE, something where we must make the call for ourselves "would the subject request deletion if they knew how?", and delete as BLP1E if so. I confidently believe Adolf Uunona would want this article deleted. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL since his elected office is municipal. Doesn't meet notability for one event, since the event is not notable. TFD (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local councillor. The subject received some coverage in December but it was all related to his unusual name and therefore fails WP:SUSTAINED. This is as close as we will ever get to a textbook WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E example. Valenciano (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL by holding a notable office, as his role is at the local level rather than the national legislature — but getting a brief blip of "news of the weird" coverage because of his name just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring international significance who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Meets WP:NPOL Adolf Unona is notable under the provision for people who have been members of legislative bodies at provincial levels. In Namibia, constituency councillors have a dual role as far as I can tell. Although they are local officials who have a local office, they also members of regional councils, which are the Namibian equivalent of state or provincial legislatures. ( Regional councils also elect members of the National council, the Nigerian upper chamber of the national legislature from among their members) Although this technically meets NPOL, and therefore I feel like it should be kept, I don't want my vote to stand in the way of a snow close if there are no other keep votes soon given the subject not wanting attention because of his name. Changing my vote to Keep per my already stated rational, since it thankfully did not go to the main page and give the subject unwanted attention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Having a politician (as opposed to just an ordinary person) with such name, which did not prevent him from being elected, seems to be marginally notable/interesting. Or may be this is just as a hilarious story, something like "vote for the name you know". That is why this story was published in many RS and was widely debated in other media, which is a reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it any less BLP1E. And yes, this is BLP1E, not the conviction of a lot of deletionists that BLP1E means "anything where if you squint there's a primary event means BAD ARTICLE". Someone who got a flash of news-of-the-weird coverage that they were openly unhappy with and avoided as much as possible is classic BLP1E. Vaticidalprophet 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly event you are talking about. He won several elections. Sources refer mostly (but not exclusively) to elections in 2020, but again these local elections were not a notable event. The potentially notable is the story about the person. If the subject likes the story is irrelevant. ~~Saying that, I agree that the case is weak, and would not be surprised if the page will be deleted.~~ My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LOWPROFILE -- seeking political power at the level he does is entirely compatible with being low-profile, and nothing he's done outside of having an awkward name is relevant. Whether the subject likes the story is indirectly relevant to BLP1E (which is far more a privacy guideline than a notability one) -- a subject who rejects attention for their one event fits the relevant clauses. Vaticidalprophet 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link/policy, Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile. That guy clearly was seeking media attention, for example by giving interviews to Bild and other newspapers (see here, for example). It would be strange if he did not. Every politician does it if he wants to be elected. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are covered by the clause above the level normally expected within the field in question. There's nothing going on here that makes him self-promotional for his field, and every indication he isn't. Vaticidalprophet 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as described here [1],

"He told Bild, the German tabloid, that his father named him without realising the connotations. "As a child I saw it as a totally normal name," he added. “Only as a teenager did I understand that this man wanted to conquer the whole world."..."

Here is link to Bild [2]. This is a self-promotion. See Media attention He gave interviews voluntarily. These are not local newspapers. There is nothing bad when someone does self-promotion, especially in politics. If he did more or less promotion than other politicians is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, I think none of three conditions of WP:BLP1E was satisfied here ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met":

No, there were multiple elections, not a single event; or perhaps there was no an a event
No, he is not a "low profile" individual (see my comment above)
Not clear what event. The role of the individual in his elections was the key. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL as elected to the equivalent of a provincial legislature. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that C of E is the primary contributor to this article and nominated it for DYK (interesting reading here, here, and here.) Vaticidalprophet 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what BPL1E is intended for, a subject who is barely notable for one thing, especially where that one thing is not a major high-profile event, and the subject does not wish to be known for it. If he had committed a prominent murder, or if his political career had included a significant scandal, something like that could be a single event sufficient to make him notable. He appears to be notable solely for his unique name, and the article quotes him explicitly as not wishing to be known for that reason. Aside from his name, and holding a non-notable political office, what is notable about this individual? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per detailed rationale by Vaticidalprophet. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about him comes even remotely close to indicating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I was a child, there was a member of the local city council in my hometown named Michael Jackson. He was not the same person as the world-famous singer who has the same name, although this was during a time (late 1980s) when that singer was perhaps at his peak of fame. I feel fairly comfortable in asserting that the local politician Michael Jackson was not then or now notable by Wikipedia standards, and he almost certainly received more votes than Mr. Uunona. There are a great many people who have the same name as someone famous, or otherwise have an unusual name. Occasionally, some people do go on to become notable despite their names, but it is not notable that a local politician has the same name as someone famous. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But was the story of that man covered in Bild, Independent, Euronews, etc.? That is what makes someone famous, and I simply think that man is already famous. I do not think it really matter so much for what reason - from the WP notability perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is just famous for their name that seems like a rather flimsy reason for them to be notable, especially if the coverage was against their will. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not just name. The story gain such publicity only because he is a successful politician and an former anti-apartheid activist. Despite some his statements, nothing was really against his will: he gave all these interviews willingly (see links with citation above and on the page) precisely to gain publicity as a politician. I suspect he would be disappointed if this WP page about him was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Sandstein: I noticed that you had earlier closed the discussion as "Delete" but then self-reverted and relisted the discussion instead. What was your reason for doing so? Just wondering since Adolf Hitler Uunona remains deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Narutolovehinata5, I noticed that I overlooked that Jackattack1597 changed their opinion, which made the "delete" consensus less clear. I've not undone the ancillary deletions such as the redirect Adolf Hitler Uunona because it appeared (now even more clearly) that the article will likely be deleted. Sandstein 06:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this really comes down to whether regional constituencies are considered similar to provincial governments in Namibia or if they're a rung below what we'd normally allow per WP:NPOL. It seems to me like they're a rung below, but I'm not 100% certain. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 9 April 2021 (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.