Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy-Patrice Lumumba

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy-Patrice Lumumba[edit]

Guy-Patrice Lumumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In accordance with WP:BIO. Article does not assert sufficient notability. Person is relative of prominent politician and ran receiving less than 1% of vote. RichMac 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. Non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He was a real candidate in the DR of Congo and it's not like he was a failed candidate for a local office. Running for national office of a large nation can be notable even if you don't win. Liz White (politician), who received only 72 votes in Canada, has an article. Even people known for being running mates of failed third-party Presidential candidates in the US have articles, see Margaret Trowe or Chuck Baldwin.--T. Anthony 09:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mer-C. As for Liz White, at al, WP:INN. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True on the INN deal, but when the son of a leader of a large nation goes on to run for President of that nation it is potentially notable. His name is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006 article. Do you suggest it be removed or left as a permanent red-link? At the very least the article is potentially notable enough to be given a year. If in July 2007 it's still not much of anything I'll AfD it myself.--T. Anthony 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you can also unlink it in that article, instead of the two choices you present. Fram 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. I'm just saying he had a place in that election and that election is fairly notable. The Lumumba legacy, whatever it might be, was also a part of that election. There was a Unified Lumumbist Party, which he was running against. There is a potential irony/curiosity/relevance to how he relates to Lumumbism. (even if turns out such a thing only exists in peoples' minds) That said I would not be horrified by it being merged to Patrice Lumumba.--T. Anthony 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tonywalton already said exactly what I was going to say (his comments weren't visible to me till I clicked the edit link). Xtifr tälk 11:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There have been some interesting points raised, and I'm not sure enough of any position at this point to raise a solid argument either way, so I'm simply going to withdraw from the debate, though I will watch with interest. Xtifr tälk 03:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Congo is a country of 30 million people. It's not really saying that much that all candidates for president should have an article on them, no matter how minor. As for Tonywalton's response, we can't ignore WP:BIAS; deleting articles on Congoan presidential candidates and leave articles on Canadian candidates, which is not coincidental, is a clear example of bias.--Prosfilaes 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found that article via Special:Random. If I had come across a similar article from a Canadian candidate I would have nominated it as such. This is the first African or politician article I have nominated. The accusasion of bias is completely uncalled for. I will also be nominating Liz White (politician) later. So that an open debate can be brought forward over it's legitimacy. RichMac (Talk) 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIAS is not about personal bias; it's about systematic bias. It's about how every politician in the English speaking world has someone to tell their story in obscene detail and justify their notability, but Nigerian politicians don't.--Prosfilaes 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think your motives were fine. You saw a paltry article on a failed candidate. I'd just agree with the above that when an article is on a failed candidate in DR of Congo their paltriness may be because of systematic issues. If Clifton Truman Daniel ran for President as an independent, and received only 0.4% of the vote, he would most likely have an article rather than be a red-link. That he was a minor candidate wouldn't make his run non-notable.--T. Anthony 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject of multiple non-trival published works. just do a google for his name. [1] [2] He's got more of a claim to fame than Michael Badnarik. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets WP:BIO as he was profiled/interviewed frequently during the campaign. Candidacy had historical resonance in Congo (and maybe, judging by the results, more for observers of Congo). --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A failed candidate isn't necessarily notable, and neither is the son of a former president. But being both of these things makes for fairly substantial notability. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Night Gyr and Dhartung; appears to meet BIO. -Kubigula (ave) 21:48, 23 November 2006 (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/Guy-Patrice_Lumumba&oldid=1142968424"