Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ike Awgu (3rd nomination)

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. There exists a rough consensus the subject isn't notable. Out of the two keep !votes, one is tentative and the other brings up a few sources without coming to terms with the argument that each instance of potential notability (politics, law, journalism) is likely too minimal to hit the threshold. In the context of a BLP, I give considerable weight to overall sourcing concerns, especially when editors proposing retention offer only a limited response in kind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Awgu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

For a BLP, we simply require more of a claim to fame than is being presented here. There isn't a single item that is truly noteworthy here. Coming in 4th or 8th for anything isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability, even if you are included in a list of failed candidates. Wriring a few articles, or hosting a show on CPAC (which appears to be the Canadian equivelant of CSPAN) isn't really a free ticket to an article. There was a discussion in 2007, exactly 15 years ago that got a couple of keeps, but this was before WP:BLP and our standards for inclusion are considerably higher now, so I don't see that as a meaningful consensus in the current environment, thus putting up for a new consensus to form. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Law, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote weak keep, as there was significant coverage of him before ([1]) and following the 2003 election ([2]), and during his aborted 2006 council run ([3] - already cited in the article). I am also troubled that this whole AfD was spurred on by an anonymous user whose only edits have been been unconstructive edits to this page and on the talk page, including a bad faith claim that I am somehow associated with the subject at hand (possible projection?), just because I attended the same university. Anyway, I realize running as a candidate does not merit notability, but he did garner more coverage than your average run of the mill candidate, which spurred on a further career in journalism.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear, I was advised of the article, and after evaluating it for a few days, I sent it here. My decision was based on the merits, not pursusion. The nomination is thorough and presents the merits clearly. It is fine to disagree, but bringing and blaming on an IP editor borders on ad hominem, and at the very least is irrelevant to the discussion. What you call a single signification link (true) is also very local in nature (also true), and coverage wasn't widespread or in a national publication. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I take issue with calling the Ottawa Citizen just a "local" paper. It is the newspaper of record for the capital city of a G7 country. Would you consider the Washington Post to be just local? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this article yet, but The Washington Post is considered a local paper when it covers local topics in the DMV region. In the 3 newspapers.com clips you linked above, all 3 are in the municipal section of the paper. Curbon7 (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and well put. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "local" and "national" media isn't a question of where the outlet happens to be based per se, because every media outlet is technically "local" to somewhere — it's a question of the relationship between where the outlet happens to be based and the context of what it's covering a topic for. For example, a high school athlete who doesn't pass our notability standards for athletes is not going to be extended a free pass of WP:GNG just because he has a bit of local coverage in the context of returning to the field in his first school-league basketball game since losing two fingers in an accident; a local restaurant owner is not going to be given a free pass of GNG just because the local newspaper has given his restaurant a review in its food section; every city councillor in every city on earth doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just because local media coverage exists; and on and so forth.
The more "local interest" and less "inherently notable" a topic is, the more they have to show reasons why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than most other people at similar levels. The closer the notability claim gets to run of the mill, in other words, the stronger the sourcing has to get to establish that this person should be treated as more than run of the mill. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I voted keep in the first discussion back in 2005, our notability and sourcing standards have changed over the past 18 years. Even in 2005, my vote wasn't on the basis of the non-winning candidacy (which has never been an article-clinching notability claim at all), and had more to do with the fact that he hosted programming on a national television channel -- but even that isn't an instant inclusion freebie anymore, in the absence of third-party validation of his significance (e.g. winning a Canadian Screen Award for that work, having coverage and analysis about the significance of that work, etc.) which simply isn't in evidence here.
Every non-winning city council candidate in every city will always have some evidence of local coverage -- so if the existence of a handful of local-interest coverage of local politics were all it took to exempt a non-winning city council candidate from WP:NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be meaningless. So no, having two or three pieces of human interest coverage about him in his local newspaper is not sufficient to make his unsuccessful candidacy more special than other people's unsuccesful candidacies, but notability as a journalist/television host has not been adequately established by 2020s standards here either. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to be a columnist for the newspaper and is used as a legal expert on a few TV shows, nothing for GNG. Huff Post Canada shut down a while ago, so this article isn't even current. Running for mayor and getting 2% of the vote is far from GNG. I don't find any current sourcing, and what I find is not useful for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a "politician", clearly fails WP:NPOL (2% vote back in 2003 in local election; never an actual politician). As a "journalist", also significantly beneath the bar of notability: a few guest appearances on a TV show back in the mid-2000s brought on by the local buzz generated from his failed election run, nothing in the field since. Reality is: subject is not a journalist. He's a laywer. And these "journalistic accomplishments" also do not begin to approach notability in the field.

Furthermore, even in 2007, the second Afd discussion appears to focus on the vandalism at the time, without actually making any real arguments as to inclusion. This is essentially a one-time-feel-good-story article with a few local (now long archived) sources that has remained a stub article with no real chance to improve it. Finally, there is the (unproven) issue of vanity by proxy (the subject himself has previously edited the article, albeit to undo vandalism). 50.237.197.242 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may be a failed mayoral candidate, but the coverage about him is more than significant. The in-depth 2010 Ottawa Citizen piece is certainly in-depth and counts towards GNG. But there's also another in-depth piece on him in the Citizen in 2003 - ProQuest 240694471 which was published after the election. More recently in 2014 he was extensively quoted on landlord right in the biggest national paper in the country. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources present nothing new i.e. the 2010 Ottawa Citizen piece is just source #2 out of 4 again on his page, and again only represents local coverage in a local paper, as does the 2003 piece, in the same local paper.

Regarding the 2014 article, I'm not sure being quoted in one article as a lawyer now, really clinches GNG. It seems that we have some local news coverage of the subject in three different fields ie politics, journalism, & law, yet even combined hardly suffice for anything resembling GNG. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 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.