Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon

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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamau Kambon[edit]

Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This guy's a university lecturer who wants to exterminate all white people and the footage of him saying that is on Youtube. How is he not notable? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If every fool on youtube gets his own article we might as well close up shop. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This man is not a fool, he's a teacher, has degrees and has appeared on TV as well. Did u read the article?. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who suggests for the extermination of white people isn't a fool? Yeah, I guess you're right, he's just a nut. Another good reason to have a WP article about him.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sarcasm? I'm being serious I can't tell. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hundreds of thousands of professors and lecturers in the US. This guy doesn't need Wikipedia's help to commit career suicide. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fred Phelps gets a whole 3 pages for picketing funerals, this guy wants to exterminate an entire race and said so on a government channel. Thats pretty notableRastov (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AnteaterZot and Brewcrewer. Being a racist is not an inherent claim to notability, and appearing in a video on YouTube is definitely not a claim to notability. (By the way, C-SPAN is not a government channel per se; it broadcasts government proceedings, but is privately controlled as a nonprofit corporation, and the event at which Kambon appeared was not a government-sponsored event.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an insane asylum. Nick mallory (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is referenced to multiple reliable sources and is therefore notable, also regarding Brewcrewer's comment above - "we might as well close up shop" - please see WP:NOTPAPER - Fosnez (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability. --Tom (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Average prof at best. The one claim to notability (the genocide thing) does not appear to have generated much attention either. --Crusio (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the "reliable sources" that Fosnez relies on to prove notability are mostly proof that he exists and taught some classes. There's a page showing that he sued a former employer; the case isn't really notable, and the page isn't about him, it's about legal precedents that may affect the University of North Carolina. (For example, Texas v. Johnson is notable, but Gregory Lee Johnson isn't.) There's one transcript from the Fox News show "Hannity & Colmes" where some people briefly brought up what he said is not a source for a biography. This article doesn't mention birth place, birth date, spouses, or children; that's a big warning sign that you're creating an article about an incident, as much as a person.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources, as I have now provided on the article (and here for convience: [1][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46992][2]). There are also heaps of other results returned on google. Fosnez (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article violates policy on biography of living people notable only for one event, and I'm especially concerned that that is a negative event.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Being a notable racist with multipleenational coverage for something which not unreasonably attracted national attention is notable. DGG (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The thing is that they write all over about "black genocide", "white racism" why we can't write about black racism ?! The guy said that "all blacks have to kill all white people" - That is the reason why we should keep this article on and nothing is bad in this, wanna be NPOV ? Be NPOV at all. "Justice for All"...

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: this article isn't about black racism, it's about a black racist. Should every racist have an article just by speaking up?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Google the guy. Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz bitch about him. This means he is notable. The Townhall.com crowd don't acknowledge/parasitize their enemies until they reach a certain notability. People say "Kill de White People" all the time. The fact that many people heard this guy say it means he is notable. contextflexed (talk)

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.