Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama

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 merge to an article to be determined through the editorial process.

Our first approximation, the headcount, indicates that there are on the order of 25 people who want the article deleted; this includes circa 5 "speedy delete"s and circa 5 "delete or merge"s. About ten people want the article to be merged somewhere (Early life and career of Barack Obama and Barack Obama, Sr. have been proposed as a target, among others). Finally, circa 15 people want the article to be kept. (These figures include rounding and probably counting errors; a few oddball opinions were also discounted.)

This is (so I'm told) not a vote, so I must consider the strength of the arguments. To determine that strength, I'm reviewing them in the light of our applicable policies, guidelines and precedents. Essentially, the "keep" camp is of the opinion that the subject meets WP:BIO on account of his coverage by the media, while the others say that this coverage occurred only because of (and viewed through the lens of) his brother's fame, and that notability is not inherited. Neither of these arguments is evidently more persuasive than the other, and both are present to some degree in our rules and current practice. In the rules, we have WP:BIO but also WP:BLP1E; in precedent, we have deleted numerous articles about children of pop stars et al, but also kept others who have found some recognition in their own right. Malik Abongo Obama is clearly on the border between the two outcomes, and I won't pretend that I can objectively determine who's right in his case.

So we're back to the headcount. It tells me that a) there is no consensus to delete this content outright, but also that b) there is consensus that Malik Abongo Obama does not currently deserve an article of his own. The only outcome consistent with these observations is that the article is to be merged into another article. It's up to the community of editors to decide on the target; in the meantime, I'm editorially redirecting the article to Barack Obama. Feel free to change the redirect target at will. The amount of material that is to be merged will have to depend on the scope of the eventual target article, so that it will have an appropriate weight within the article. Should Malik Abongo Obama later become distinctly more notable, his biography can be spun off into a separate article again, once there's consensus for that.

A note on procedure: The "speedy delete" opinions are discounted insofar as they don't also express an opinion on the merits of the article, because the article is now substantially different from its previously deleted version, and because the volume of the discussion here clearly requires a review de novo. Just please don't immediately open a third AfD. Thanks for bearing with me.  Sandstein  21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Abongo Obama[edit]

Malik Abongo Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The person known by various news organizations (eg----

  1. An August 15 Daily Nation (Nairobi) feature (re info about family members derived from interviews)
  2. The Associated Press (reporting bylined from Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya), and
  3. Media Matters for America (precipitated by an interview of the subject by Israel's Army Radio)----as Malik Obama, is, according to t
  4. ABC News, the older half-brother of Barack Obama, whom, as Barack notes in
  5. Dreams from My Father, is also known to other members of the extended Obama family as "Roy" or "Abongo," as he has also been termed by
  6. the Chicago Sun-Times.
UPDATES 7. A June 10 Daily Nation news blip labels "Malik Abong'o Obama" the Kenyan Obama fam's spokesman.
8. NYT ←no mention of Malik Obama under any of his names in this opinion piece

  • "In Obama's book Dreams of My Father, interestingly enough, he writes about meeting Malik as an adult: 'I checked into the cheapest room I could find and waited. At nine, I heard a knock. When I opened the door, I found a big man standing there with his hands in his pockets, an even-toothed grin breaking across his ebony face. "Hey, brother," he said. "How’s life?" In the pictures I had of Roy, he was slender[...].'"----JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (...with the underlining of stuff of course mine :^)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) amended   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know others will advocate for this article's deletion, since the WP bio only dealing with the sources for Abongo Obama had only been deleted yesterday evening.

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • KEEP. Barack's half-brother Malik merits inclusion (as I would support the inclusion of a bio of the half-brother of Bill Clinton, Roger Clinton, Jr., who has likewise been mentioned in multiple news sources). — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*******Thanks for pointing this out S. Dean. I do not believe a merge should just happen without discussion. If I am incorrect I recommend that an admin take action on this.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) *Sigh. You inappropriately removed my comment (which you had no right to do, without my permission) AND yours (which you had every righ to do). I restored mine (which was my right and responsibility) and did not restore yours (which I had no right to do). To others: Is there nothing we can do about this situation? S. Dean Jameson 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge would be awkward. The Malik article is about Malik Obama, and the Sarah article is about Sarah Obama. What kind of a topic is "Malik and Sarah Obama"? That's not an encyclopedic subject. "Family of Barak Obama" is too broad (it would have to include all the family members) and misses the point - the content is not about the fact that Obama has a family, but is about the specific people involved. "List of extended Barak Obama family members?" "List of distant but not too distant relatives of...." "List of family members who don't have their own articles?" - all of these are clunky and not encyclopedic subjects. To treat the content at all, I think we have to acknowledge that there is sourced, verifiable, notable encyclopedic material here, and the goal is to put it where it makes the most sense. Wikidemo (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Delete. This article was deleted 24 minutes ago (under slightly different title). It's possible the bio figure may become more notable in the future, and merit an article. But I don't thing there's been such a change in the last hour. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama. I've changed to "strong", which isn't really much different I know. After giving it a shot at improvement, I don't see any claim of notability outside of Barack Obama's book. There are a number of sources, but they all consist of "Barack said these things about Malik Abongo in his book"; even if a thousand sources think Dreams From My Father is worth mentioning, that doesn't add any extra notability to Malik Abongo himself. It just enforces the conclusion that we should keep the article on the book (which no one has argued against anyway). LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've modified my vote to just "delete". Although I think it is a clear G4 speedy candidate, the closing admin of the prior AfD has stated that although he agrees on G4 eligibility, WP:BITE lets us considers this a "WP:DRV by other means". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recreation_of_article_that_just_finished_AFD_Malik_Abongo_Obama. I'm happy to WP:AGF on this, so merely support non-speedy deletion.LotLE×talk 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's a speedy candidate. If we assume "Malik Abongo Obama" is the same person as "Abongo Obama" then this is not an exact recreation. The recreated article, if someone adds the sources, potentially overcomes the notability objection on which the earlier article was deleted. We ought to consider the full range of sources when judging notability, something that was not done in the earlier debateWikidemo (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a pretty borderline case. There are a couple of sources where he features prominently, but I wouldn't consider Barack Obama's memoir to be evidence of notability. An important thing to remember is that Malik is not notable because his brother is; notability is not inherited. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the correct usage of notability is not inherited. It's not about sources not mattering when you have a famous relative, it's about whether you have sources of your own. This article passes that by having multiple non trivial reliable sources. Not inherited would be if Malik were relying entirely on Barack without sources of his own. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect for the same reasons expressed by LotLE; this article was just deleted after a thorough discussion because the overwhelming sense of the AfD was that the subject is not notable at this time according to Wikipedia standards. Notability is not inherited and the references listed do not attest to any independent notability. Tvoz/talk 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Clarification As I said below, this can easily be handled as a redirect to Barack Obama Sr.#Children - so I am clarifying this to read "Delete and redirect". Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as newly sourced it falls well within the WP:BIO standard of notability. Substantial coverage in a number of major reliable sources (feature-style articles about the individual in top U.S. newspapers), over a period of at least four years so it's no mere campaign issue or flash in the pan. Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4. It was already marked as an A4 (presumably meant G4) and someone removed the tag. However it still qualifies as the article was already deleted under a slighly different name not a couple of hours ago after a 5-day AFD -Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama. If one disagree's with an AFD one should go to WP:DRV rather than recreating the article. Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bit of a mess now, isn't it? I can only apologise that RL prevented from doing the follow-up conversations that would have prevented this... Regardless:

  • This article is a candidate for speedy deletion, it is identical in substance to the earlier article.
  • There are additional sources external links added to the bottom of the article, but at this stage they are just acting as window dressing and there is no evidence that anything was added to the article from them. It's not a good idea (editorially speaking) to just dump some links in to attempt to stave off deletion.
  • That being said, this same request could have gone through "channels" at deletion review by being re-created in user space. A cogent argument there would have been "additional sources provided late in deletion debate."

The only difference would be that this article is visible (and may be improved) during the time an additional examination takes place. So, my opinion as the closing administrator is that this debate should be allowed to have it's "time in court" despite that not being strictly by the rules. My opinion as a random editor is that this article does not merit inclusion on its own, but that a section within Obama Family or some such would serve. - brenneman 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete (A4)-- Jesus, this thing is like a weed! We just deleted it like an hour ago. I agree with brenneman, let's merge with Obama Family and get it over with already. L'Aquatique[review] 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article and AfD is kind of out of process, but it's notabie and is only going to get more and more notable. The previous AfD had a bunch of deletes before it was conclusively shown to be notable, but it was too late. Probably should take this to WP:DR:deletion review or we can be reasonable and just keep it this time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion candidate since all those articles were linked to under references. I'll quote in case any one is wondering "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The reason for deletion was notability, and it was addressed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he gets "more and more notable" as you predict he is "going to"- although you don't say how it is that you can see into the future - someone can write an article that reflects his notability and it will be considered on its merits. This one does not. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, this is blabant readding of deleted content in contradiction with an afd finished just few hours ago. I'd suggest closing this afd and turning the link into a redirect. --Soman (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please move past calls for speedy deletion? It's clearly not a candidate and any speedy deletion would be contested or simply re-created. The question here is notability. Based on the sources in the article as it now stands, is this person notable. He satisfies WP:BIO so I think it's up to anyone who claims he is not notable to argue why despite satisfying the notability guideline he is nevertheless non-notable. Wikidemo (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arrr, I'm put in the unfortunate position here of arguing against what I've said I want done: It really is a candidate for speedy deletion.
  • The content of the article is almost identical, it's just that a couple of external links were added to the bottom. No admin would be expected to perform that extensive a job that he'd follow every link in an article to ensure that the conditions that the article were deleted under still apply. That's why we have deletion review.
  • If the "new" article had incorporated new material from these links (and used them as refs) then the above would not be true.
brenneman 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkYDone. I didn't create this mess and didn't want to have to rewrite the article, but given the circumstances the only real issue is notability. Everything else is a procedural knot that is best untangled as simply as possible to get to the real content question. Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge, or userfy (I won't be picky) as passing basic notability. Someone add more content so it no longer fits the criteria for speedy, as aaron hints at. — MaggotSyn 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable individual. Media attention has been purely because he is somebody's brother. Other than him being somebody's brother, there isn't anything noteworthy to report about this person. WP:V and WP:BIO aren't a suicide pact: Just because some media have reported a few trivia about him doesn't mean we have to regurgitate those. And I see no reason why an encyclopedia would want to. -- Wouldn't mind a speedy either; the addition of a few new sources has not really changed the situation so radically in comparison with the older AfD that the previous result just be discarded like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Meets WP:NOTE and WP:BIO with a bit of summarizing the external links into normal references. And again, you can call WP:CRYSTAL if you want, but info related to B. Obama is on the rise. I don't think he's going away any time in the next several months. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing Barack Obama's notability. We're talking about whether or not his half-brother has any independent notability, and the external links don't demonstrate any, nor are they reflected in the article. For example, at least one of them merely mentions his name - that is handled elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think notability is established by the references. There are press sources that focus primarily on him. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyking Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. Definitely not a speedy candidate. A merge to Obama family might not be a bad idea (although I would call the article Family of Barack Obama, for clarity ("Obama family" sounds like a TV show). Neıl 龱 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looking at the article, it seems to meet all criterion for WP:BIO and certainly is not a WP:CSD A7 candidate. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter that there are articles that primarily feature Malik - they are still only because he is the brother of Barack. For example (from 2004): "Until Barack's bid for Congress, little happened here to disturb the chickens scratching in the dust or the dogs sleeping in front of tin-roofed homes." That hardly seems notable to me; in fact, it defines the very essence of non-notability. This article does nothing but say that Barack Obama has an older brother.  Frank  |  talk  11:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", and I think that's something that applies here. As Frank said, the article does little more than point out that Obama has a brother. If anything, I'd redirect this page to Obama's article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The WP:NOTINHERITED arguments used above are wrong. It's essentially like saying Laura Bush is only notable because she's the wife of a president, so we shouldn't have an article on her because notability is not inherited. That notability is not inherited is not a reason to delete an article about a person with significant coverage in reliable sources, because even if that person is notable because of who they are related to, that doesn't mean they inherited their notability. In other words, WP:NOTINHERITED applies only if we were trying to say siblings of presidential candidates are inherently notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to Merge/Redirect to Barack Obama, Sr. per reasoning below.--Michael WhiteT·C 12:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, being the spouse of someone famous imparts notability more quickly, surely, and easily than being a sibling, so the analogy is imperfect at best. In the spousal case, the notable person presumably chose the spouse, whereas a sibling is not chosen. Second, Laura has had 10+ years in the national spotlight as W's wife, and by now her own independent notability has been established. Whether or not she would have gained it without her husband being president is beside the point. But Malik Obama has not gained any whiff of notability yet for any reason other than his notable brother.  Frank  |  talk  13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the spouse of someone famous does not impart notability, significant coverage in reliable sources does. Malik Obama did not inherit his notability from his brother (inherit meaning gain inherent notability due to his relationship), he gained his notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the first point; my comment was that a spouse would gain notability more quickly, surely, and easily than a sibling would. We disagree on the second; Malik Obama not only did not inherit notability...he hasn't gained any at all.  Frank  |  talk  14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so would you agree that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a valid deletion rationale in this case, because no one (well, except Czar Brodie below) is claiming that Malik Obama is inherently notable simply for being Barack Obama's brother. That is completely different than being notable because he is Barack Obama's brother, and for no other reason. On that I disagree with you. Just because he is only notable for being Barack Obama's brother does not mean he is insufficiently notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting and thought-provoking question. I suspect it becomes a matter of semantics which we may not iron out sufficiently here. I am saying that he simply isn't notable. My default position is that nobody is notable until it is proven that s/he is. I have referenced WP:NOTINHERITED as a defense against those who say he is notable, but my interpretation is that NOTINHERITED simply exists as a way to say that it isn't enough to establish notability. When you say he is "only notable for being Barack Obama's brother", you are making a logical leap I have not made; I'm not saying he's "only notable" for any reason...I'm saying he simply isn't notable at all.  Frank  |  talk  15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose it is largely semantics, and of course the notability guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive. If I was having a deletionist day, I might agree with you and say that he hasn't done anything notable, it's recentism, and the coverage in RS is not significant enough. However, I honestly do think that he has been the subject of enough media coverage to make him notable, even if it's only because he's Barack Obama's brother.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this article is notable. The family of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates and prominent senators are (for good and bad reasons) of interest to the general public [i.e. the ref. press reports]. I think this rule applies regardless of whether the family members are qualified as "interesting" or not.Czar Brodie (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • Speedy Strong delete - G4, per the AfD that finished yesterday on this identical topic. --T-rex
    • Seeing as this refuses to be speedied as it should be, let me remind everyone that notability is not inherited and Malik's only claim to fame is that his half brother might become president. Yes a moderate number of sources have mentioned Malik's name, but none have said anything significant besides that he is Barak's half brother (The reason being of course that there is nothing else to say). Adding more sources only helps if the additional sources say something different. --T-rex 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since this bio's very recent deletion (A) its notability problem has been addressed via expansion of its sources (had only two while it now has more than eight) and (B) article's length has doubled.   Justmeherenow (  ) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability problem has not been addressed. Having eight sources stating that he is Obama's brother is no better than two saying the same thing --T-rex 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's been addressed (so clearly not speedy). Whether you believe it's addressed adequately is another matter. People obviously thought that the two previous sources were not, in sum, reliable independent secondary sources containing substantial coverage of the subject of the article (or whatever notability criteria they were contemplating). Adding additional sources and content is a way of addressing that objection. Of the new reliable sources added to the article two used to support a considerable amount of new content are clearly substantial mentions - one is an Associated Press feature article specifically devoted to profiling Malik Obama. Others, not (yet) used to verify article content, are devoted to Malik Obama's role in his brother's presidential election bid.Wikidemo (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...which is zero.  Frank  |  talk  14:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, clearly far more than zero. Whether it's zero or not is decided by looking at the reliable sources and what they choose to cover. Malik set off a storm of reportage, and anti-Obama propaganda, when he was quoted out of context by the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Post article was mis-reported in blogs. Tens of thousands of google hits and dozens of news articles. What he actually did say is also quite interesting, and got coverage in Israel's other leading paper. He was interviewed, and made statements of interest worldwide, on his relationship with his brother and what he thought of his brother's prospective presidency. The gist was that he said Obama would be good for Israel, and that (despite being a Muslim) he approved because he had nothing against the Jewish people...or something like that. Then everyone evaluated those comments through their own agendas and perceptions. That's far more notability on this one incident than most bio articles have overall. It's only small in proportion to the overall presidential election, which is a huge issue with dozens of articles devoted to it. The reason that's not (yet) in the article has nothing to do with notability - it's that the issue is problematic and has delicate POV, weight, and BLP concerns. Wikidemo (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are covering the coverage, not the person...and the person still isn't notable other than being the brother of someone who is notable.  Frank  |  talk  14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have a point there regarding the coverage of his comments. However, surely [1], [2], and to some extent [3] amount to significant coverage of the man himself. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure...the first one mentions Barack 11 times. The article is more about Barack than anyone else. The second is only four paragraphs, and is about Malik...as presented in Barack's book. The third is more coverage of the coverage. (I hope it doesn't appear I have a political opinion one way or the other here - I'm simply saying that Malik isn't notable by himself.)  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of notability is just fine. Interaction with notable people can make one notable, e.g. Sirhan Sirhan. He's never mentioned apart from Bobby Kennedy. An article about how the brother of Senator Obama is leading a much different life in Africa, and what he and his fellow Africans think of their famous kin, and what it has to say about world events, culture, etc., is indeed substantial coverage of the brother. Beyond that it is interesting. It is worth knowing. It is educational, enlightening. People ought to know that if they want to understand the subject. That's basically what notability is all about. Cultural connections - that was a large part of the famous Mzoli's debate. Wikidemo (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as gossip, personally. Nothing in the coverage I've seen (and of course I can't claim to know what all the coverage says) enlightens a reader as to what Barack thinks and feels. Nothing implies that Malik has any special knowledge of Barack - far from it. Rather, the coverage says that he is relatively distant (figuratively as well as the obvious physical distance).  Frank  |  talk  15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Associated Press, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz are not in the business of printing gossip in the news section. The two brothers spent time together as children and reconnected again as adults. They were best men at each others' weddings. But the point of the Malik article is not to shed light on Barak, it's to shed light on Malik and thereby on the state of the world. One Brother becomes a US senator; the other despite having many opportunities returns to the ancestral village to run a small shop. That enlightens the reader about culture, politics, society, immigration, etc., which is probably why it got coverage. The "everyman philosopher" or ordinary citizen thrust into great events may well be notable. Again, that's a decision measured by the sources, and there are certainly sources interested in profiling Malik Obama's life. Wikidemo (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the others, but the Associated Press has no problem printing gossip in the news section. Regardless none of those diffent papers have said anything about Malik that is remotly notable outside of his half-brother --T-rex 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Wikidemo: you have seriously misread the article : Barack had absolutely no relationship with Malik/Roy/Abongo until adulthood - they most definitely did not spend any time together as children. They first met when Barack was 24 years old; Barack only barely knew his father who left when he was two years old and came back once to visit when Barack was 10; Barack never saw his father again and did not spend time with any of his Obama half-siblings. They are half-brothers, but there is no independent notability demonstrated for Malik/Abongo/Roy. Your description sounds like there were these two brothers who were raised together and took separate paths - it was nothing of the kind. There's nothing in the article that can't be/isn't already covered in Barack Obama Sr. and/or Barack Obama. And the sources that talk about the Jerusalem Post misquote are actually about Barack and about the Jerusalem Post and about Brit Hume - not about Malik. That minor flap can easily be accommodated in the presidential campaign article if it is viewed to be notable enough to even merit that - it doesn't confer notability on Malik. And the Nairobi Nation source only mentions Malik's name three times: once listing him as one of the half-siblings, once saying his wife had not met Barack, and the third time to say that Malik was not there when the reporter was there. I don't see how that reference should be in this article at all. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how much time Barack spent with his biological father, or at what age he was when he met Roy (aka Abongo), it was in fact Barack’s drive to understand these people who were missing from his life for so long that he himself found notable enough to write a book about it. The book itself is notable since it’s a bestseller and helped him buy his house, which also appears to be notable. Fears of the article being used as a coatrack as Tvoz as mentioned are not grounds for deletion. Notability, as subjective as that is, needs to be the focus. Barack seems to think Abongo is notable, based on his book, and he also doesn't seem to be trying to hide that or protect his brother's privacy. (This is a slight re-write of my initial comment).--Utahredrock (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a notable book doesn't confer notability on a person. That is still the core of this discussion.  Frank  |  talk  14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability, or merge with the poorly-titled Obama family. Being the brother of a notable person does not confer notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: there is no article Obama family, Scj, it was deleted a while ago - it is now, properly, a redirect to Barack, assuming no one has gone in and undone that consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the Obama/Obama family artcles. Person not notable per se, notability not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Ukexpat mauler90 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again)-Merge and redirect to Barack Obama, Sr., per the reasoning of Brenneman, Risker, and Newross. Add that, rather than keep, I recommend deleting and simply adding any pertinent information about this man into the Barack, Sr. article. The note at the bottom that there's no consensus to delete is just not true. The merges and deletes (both basically saying, "this subject doesn't need a stand-alone article") outnumber the keeps by a vast majority. I still don't find reliable sources that focus on Malik Abongo Obama apart from his very famous brother, and--as has been pointed out before--notability is not conferred by familial relations. I'm not certain why this wasn't simply G4-ed, but one way or the other, it needs to go for now. If he becomes notable in his own right (like Roger Clinton or Billy Carter, for example) then and only then should the article be recreated. S. Dean Jameson 14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Clinton, Jr. likewise would not be notable completely independently of Bill. Roger is a very minor character actor in a scant handful of productions and is otherwise notable for being pardoned for cocaine possession or whatever by Bill in the Clinton administration's infamous final few hours. (Hmm, kinda reminds me of Dreams from My Father's psuedonymous "Ray" a.k.a. Keith. But blood----in the case of Bill re Roger----is thicker than water, as they say.)   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just not correct. The New York Times alone has ninety-six articles listed for Roger - and that is just one newspaper. There was a good deal of press coverage throughout the 1990s for Roger, just as Billy Carter got in the 1970s - The Times lists 629 articles about Billy - as a result, they both have more than enough notability to justify their articles. Malik/Roy/Abongo has nothing remotely close. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when must there be source that focus on a person apart from their notable relative for them to be considered notable, as long as the coverage does constitute significant coverage, even if the coverage is related to their notable relative? "Notable is his own right" is meaningless - notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not strictly what a person has done.--Michael WhiteT·C 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the "Obama family" article. There is nothing in the article that talks about his actions outside of Barack's life/campaign. He should be notable for somthing that he has done himself. Blackngold29 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Check old version for substantial similarities to new version and if it is similar speedy delete otherwise continue with this version's AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into something related if it is not a speedy-delete candidate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but this is a moot discussion as the Abongo Obama article has already been deleted through the AfD process (and this is a recreation of the same material) this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep And cheers to Justmeherenow for having the guts to keep this effort going. I oppose, however, merging with Sarah Obama--Utahredrock (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge all wikipedians to read about inclusionists at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
NOTE: The above user, Utahredrock, has been inappropriately canvassing for votes on Talk:John McCain. See this disccusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please don't tell half the picture. I was also encouraging input on the Obama page--and I went there over a day prior to going to McCain's. There seems to be some dispute whether I was actually canvassing in an inappropriate way or not. With Tvoz's heroic mentoring I think I probably crossed a line, yet I was unaware that there was even a policy about this when I launched my mini-crusade to save this article. My goal was and is broader input on this discussion and yes, I am a proud inclusionist too.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you have backed off from the earlier, blatant attempts to canvass users that support your opinion[4][5], the fact that you phrase the request in a way that clearly indicates your preferencence for the outcome of this discussion makes it inappropriate canvassing by violating the "Campaigning" portion of that rule. These debates are decided on the merits, not on who has more "voters" on their side. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not, nor have I ever been, Utahredrock's mentor - I have merely pointed out to him, repeatedly, when he violated policy. I did, however, recommend that he obtain mentoring through WP:MENTOR, and still think he needs to pursue that, to learn how to conduct himself in actions like this one. Tvoz/talk 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that felt personal.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Like in the book, this subject is a sentence in someone else's life and that should be reflected here. I know Barack Obama's page is ridiculously large, but that is seriously where this stuff belongs. EBY3221 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The difference between this person and, say, Jeb Bush, a family member of George W. Bush, is that Jeb Bush is actually notable on his own while Mr. Obama is known only for his relation to Barack Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However it happened, this person has become notable. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Barack_Obama,_Sr.#Children. Shem(talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop being so binary, you mob What's the problem we're here trying to solve? Someone has content that they are willing to add, are willing to find sources for, etc. That's a good thing and should be encouraged. We also have some standards about what constitutes an article, which is also a good thing. Rather than locking into delete/keep mentality, why don't we try to solve the actual problem. Merging into Obama family has been mooted, but there appears to be some slight precedent against articles of that nature. However, consensus can change, and a well written article at User:Utahredrock/Obama family would have a good chance at deletion review, and I'd be willing to be spammed to take part in any discussion there. - brenneman 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and to avoid the additional hoop of me asking for the deleted content, can the closing admin consider this such a request if it comes to that? - brenneman 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait a minute - you WERE the closing Admin of the first AFD. You agreed that consensus was delete. But you then broke all the rules by letting the article be recreated, bypassing the speedy and DRV. And now your fighting for a Keep? Surely you should be remaining neutral on the subject. There is the appearance here that your failure to follow the proper protocol is some kind of bias. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm trying to do is follow the spirit of the rules as closely as I'm following the letter
  1. There existed rough consensus when I closed the first debate to delete the article. If there is any argument that I closed incorrectly, I have not been presented with it but am happy to discuss.
  2. I intended to inform the most passionate participants about deletion review, and offer to assist them with any issues regarding the culturally accepted ways things are done. Since we don't really have rules, it is all just our version of politeness, really.
  3. I didn't do that, but the protaganist here was also very polite, creating this deletion nomination himself I believe? That's an attitude I'm happy to applaud: Someone who is willing to contribute, but also understands that debate is how we move forward collectively.
  4. I do not believe that the article as it stands conforms to our standards with respect to inclusion of humans.
  5. I do believe that arguments could be made for its inclusion as part of another article. I'd like to hear those arguments before I make a decision on them.
  6. The objections to that article (e.g. Obama family) are in my opinion weak, and I'm happy to assist anyone in facilitating more discussion on that.
There is no reason for me to be "neutral" on a subject, and to be frank while adminship is no big deal we are picked for judgment, aren't we? I'm only required to not use the tools to support my position, stating my opinion is fine. I hope that this makes my rational clear, and apologise for taking up so much time with it.
brenneman 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. There may be a process problem here, but topic meets WP:N and WP:V without a doubt. Plenty of sources from which to write an article. And those sources are very solid. Not really any good reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. notability and verifiability have been clearly established through Justmeherenow's meticulous research. I understand what "notability is not inherited", but this is one of those hybrid cases where it's not the person's familial relations, or the mainstream press articles about them, but the combination of these factors which conveys a significance that is more than the sum of its parts. Again, I point to Roger Clinton, Jr. and Gustav Schwarzenegger as comparable examples (it's unlikely that either of these two would have come to anyone's attention were it not for their relation to extremely prominent political figures; at the same time, it's not the familial relation alone, but other factors which caused them to get the notice and attention that they did. If Malik were not involved in political activities of his own, or managed to avoid talking to the press, then you could make a case for his permanent obscurity, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, we need to merge this to something - really, there is useful information here that provides some worthwhile context, but it doesn't really work in either the Barack Obama biography or the article about the current campaign or the article about the book which is its main reference source. I guess I lean toward an Family of Barack Obama article; in truth, the diversity of his family raises their level of notability closer to a "keep" level. I feel uncomfortable userfying biographical articles because they're out of the general view of the community (not that I am suggesting anyone would misbehave, it's just that content development usually works better with collaboration in situations like this).
With respect to the close of the first AfD, I think brenneman did the right thing - correctly interpreted consensus and closed in accordance with it, despite what his own opinion was. Forcing the article to DRV, where the main focus is whether or not the deletion was in accordance with process, seems like needless wonkery, so I'm fine seeing it here. I hope, despite what some have seen from time to time, nobody would have expected a DRV discussion to focus mainly on content and whether or not it meets our policy-based standards; this is the place to talk about that. Risker (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD that was closed approx. 24 hours ago was not the first. This article has been deleted before. The following page has a link to one of the discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24

I point this out as an inclusionist. It will likely keep being recreated until it's successfully added.--Utahredrock (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Good spot. That article seems as good a place to house the current content as any, if the decision is against Malik Obama having an article of his own. The most vital stuff could be condensed to a couple paragraphs. Perhaps a few of the other children and in-laws on the father's side will merit a paragraph and that could be done without swamping the father's article. If the notability of any of these people expands in the future they may need their own article again after all though. Wikidemo (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is not notable in any real respect. Simply being related to someone who has a profile is not enough. A brief reference in Obama's main article should be quite adequate. We do not need a mini "Obama clan" project on Wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, more or less per Fut. Perf., John Smith and others. Or more simply: This is an unremarkable person (unless you regard the reversion of the US Presidency to a monarchy as particularly well advanced). If he later becomes remarkable he can get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Barack Obama, Sr.#Children He's only notable for being someone's brother, and it doesn't appear he and Barack have spent much time together. I suspect the main reason for the creation of the article lies in the External links, focusing on Roy's conversion to being a Muslim, and therefore some convoluted connection with U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel and how Barack <ooh! ooh!>may be influenced by his Muslim brother</ooh! ooh!>. Nice try, but enough already. Flatterworld (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why he was in the news lately, but it's not safe to assume bad motivations on the part of editors. Any other person with this amount of sourcing would not be up for deletion. The pro-Obama people seem to want to delete, and those who criticize Obama want to keep for the most part. An odd twist that being for Obama means denigrating his brother. I suspect that's a matter of perceptual lenses, nothing deliberate.Wikidemo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This amount of sourcing"? Have you actually read the sources? Flatterworld is right, and your characterization of editors as "pro-Obama" or "those who criticize Obama" is neither parallel construction nor accurate. Lots of people who support Obama criticize him as well, and you might allow that at least some editors here are neither pro nor anti Obama, but are trying to avoid POV pieces and are evaluating the article and the subject on its merits. Tvoz/talk 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should think I read the sources - I wrote half the article text at this point. The Associated Press article was particularly helpful. I've dealt with quite a few bio articles and most are started and kept with less sourcing than this. One of the favorites, which I wrote, is Noel Toy, the "Chinese Sally Rand" (and no pointy AfD-ing Noel Toy, please). You can't tell me Malik Obama is less notable than a girl with a brief burlesque career in the 1940s . It's absolutely not a POV piece. It's accurate and plainly obvious that the Obama+ people from the Barak Obama tend to urge deletion, and the few Obama- people tend to urge keeping. The "criticize" reference was very specific - shorthand for people who are urging us to include more criticism by opponents of Obama in the Obama-related articles. I truly don't think anyone is setting out to do this deliberately, but the effect is that people line up and take sides that more or less match their biases in article editing. That doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with our formal notability standard - which the article plainly meets.Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you that Malik Obama is less notable than a girl with a brief burlesque career in the 1940s. This Obama runs a small electronics shop; nothing wrong with that, but it's not notable. My opposition has nothing to do with my view of Obama's more famous brother and everything to do with my understanding that (i) people aren't notable for who they're related to, perhaps outside the inner circle of royalty; and (ii) the proto-monarchy in the US (whereby such nobodies as Billy Carter and various Bushes become tabloid fodder) only kicks in when a relative becomes quasi-monarch. This Obama sounds a pleasant fellow and if I heard he was hereabouts and at a loose end I'd be delighted to take him out for dinner (something I'm not sure I can say about, say, any Bush), but this has nothing to do with his notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE SOURCING: Everybody here please note that the first four sources (listed up top of the page) are not drawn from Dreams at all, instead they derive either from African-based bylines or at least from direct interview of Malik.   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at them. They all say that, yes, Malik exists. I don't think anyone claimed he is a fictional invention. None of them, however, claim any actual WP:NOTABILITY for Malik; they all simply say he's so-and-so old, lives in this town, and is related to someone famous. The thin facts are well enough cited, they just don't add up to notability. Similarly, the guy who owns the nice restaurant down the block appeared in the papers a few times: maybe a restaurant review, a few words on where he moved from, how old he is, and why he started this restaurant, perhaps in a notice about the musical act that performed there, etc. Those add up to verifiable details, but they don't make my local restaurateur notable (yes, he, like Malik, is a "nice guy" and "interesting", but that's still not notability). LotLE×talk 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! By Dreams I didn't mean "dreams" but, rather, B's memoir (Dreams from My Father). Sorry.   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Mzoli's (an article whose inclusion Wikidemo defends here)? <wink>   Justmeherenow (  ) 23:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mzoli's is not covered by BLP policy and was not created in the midst of a heated political competition that could use that stub to make subtle and false innuendo about another person, with potential BLP and coatrack problems. It was a stub - I've created a few of them too. Not relevant here. Tvoz/talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP's mission is to provide an accurate encyclopedia, one that's (yes, absolutely!) carefully parsed for its balance and neutrality while not censoring information. (Read: "When there are sufficient underlying secondary sources to do so, WP is enjoined to write articles that are above reproach as to their fairness and accuracy as based on them. Period. Nowhere is it indicated that WP is supposed to fret about how folks utilize information and opinions that are, by definition, accurate and balanced.")   Justmeherenow (  ) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested a BLP concern at all, much less BLP being the basis for proposed deltion. Could use that stub to make subtle and false innuendo about another person - so the motivation for deletion is POV? The article is not a coatrack or POV. Is there a single thing in the article that is biased? Is the fact that a man has a rural African brother who converted to Islam (and who is a college-trained accountant, world traveller, and political consultant) supposed to be a negative thing? If so that's pretty sad. Since when is it a negative thing to be African or Muslim? The analogy with Mzoli's is that the notability comes from its being at a cultural crossroads, bridging black township butcher shop with modern world culture, tourism, and international celebrity. On the one hand there's nothing at all special about a bustling neighborhood restaurant in Africa. On the other hand, that restaurant's interaction with the modern world has gotten it some significant attention. Sometimes the cultural context of a thing is what makes it notable. The nubmer of sources is comparable too, BTW. Mzoli's was also re-created after deletion, and subject to one of the strongest WP:POINTy deletion attempts I've seen.Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - right - there has been discussion about BLP/coatrack issues regarding this article in the previous AfD that ended moments before this one started, and in talk page discussions, not here - I forgot it wasn't here when I made my Mzoli's response. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree 100% with John Smith's comments, above: "This person is not notable in any real respect. Simply being related to someone who has a profile is not enough. A brief reference in Obama's main article should be quite adequate. We do not need a mini 'Obama clan' project on Wikipedia." --Art Smart (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's really at stake here, by Utahredrock

The main argument to delete is the alleged non-notability of Abongo/Roy/Malik? Obama. The guy’s life is forever changed because of his remarkably talented brother who has a good chance at becoming the president of the United States. We edit Wikipedia, I hope, less as voters and more as arbiters of facts.

What got me interested in the family of Barack Obama was the viral email that was going around claiming he is not a Christian and he is a _________ extremist. While I could see through the lie immediately, I had friends who just as immediately bought in to it. When I tried to find information on the supposed accomplices to Barack’s supposed religious views, it was hard to find a thing on the Internet.

As editors of Wikipedia we have responsibility and power. We have a responsibility to do our best to get the facts out. We have power because in this age of Google and Wikipedia circa 2008, tens of millions of people look to us, as imperfect as we are, as a source for information. In the case of Obama the numbers could be higher. Do all of those people read Wikipedia? Not necessarily, but the power of this online encyclopedia to disperse information is enormous.

If this article is deleted again, for at least the third time, life will go on.

What will be lost is a place that could serve as a small beacon of truth in a world filled with those who will twist the truth.

Not notable? Who are we kidding?

Barack wrote extensively about his brother in his bestselling book. That fact alone, given Barack’s international prominence makes Abongo/Roy notable. It’s a burden that Roy didn’t ask for and I wish him the best.

I ask my fellow Wikipedians to offer a simple place where people can easily get well sourced facts on this man and not be left wondering if the latest viral email they received is true or not.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. This article should be deleted (for the third time) (it should have been speedied - I have no understanding why that wasn't done). While the quality of the article has improved, there is nothing in the article to support his notability other than he is is the half-brother of a US politician. The references seem to confirm this, but do nothing to say that he is notable in his own right. User:Utahredrock has made it quite clear above that the constant recreation of this article has more to do with an upcoming election than creating an enyclopedia. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all about creating a quality and comprehensive encyclopedia. Nothing more.--Utahredrock (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there additional deletions of this? One user directed me to the logs, but I couldn't even find the earlier of these two listed. I don't know the answer to this, but it seems possible, if not likely, that there may have been other previous deletions as well. If a more experienced editor could definitively answer this it would help regarding quality and completeness of the discussion this time around.--Utahredrock (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Note: User Nfitz moved this question from the top of the page, where he had listed some of the previous deletions, to the bottom. A comprehensive list is relevant and important.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a speedy of Malik Obama in March. Just click on logs in the top of last week's nomination. But no discussion that is relevent to this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that should be added at the top with the others?--Utahredrock (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly relevant. If an article has been created and deleted multiple times that fact alone helps prove that it’s notable. The multiple names of this guy makes this a problematic issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why this man is incredibly notable

While I personally could care less what somebody’s religion is or isn’t, it’s an unfortunate fact that many people do care and a person’s religion is often included in encyclopedic entries (something I’ve argued against before).

Those on this page may have not noticed, but there is a struggle in this world between Muslim extremists and others. Few people who do pay attention would deny this.

It is a historic and notable fact that the brother of a major candidate for the president of the U.S. is Muslim. To my knowledge it is a historic first, and firsts are usually notable to writers of encyclopedias.

Again, it is just not credible to say this man is not notable. I mean no offense by that, but it is not.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous speedy appears to be because it was some kind of attack page. I don't see that's related to the current debate. Also there isn't anything in a speedy to see ... no discussion. I guess there were two speedies, as the DRV was for a speedy, but all the discussion is in the DRV. "... has been created and deleted multiple times that fact alone helps prove that it’s notable". Surely if the page keeps being deleted it demonstrates he's not notable. I'm not sure why you are bringing religion into this. One can't be notable for just having a religion, keeping a butterfly collection, reading Tolkien, etc. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two examples of individuals who are notable in their own right and quite apart from their religion. All members of Congress are inherently notable, and Cassius Clay would have qualified as notable even before his conversion to Islam, as an Olympic boxing winner - had the Internet even existed then. These examples do nothing to establish notability for Abongo.  Frank  |  talk  02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re perceptive. The point was in response to the comment on religion. Sometimes a person’s religion itself is notable, and even makes them more notable--as is the case with each of these two examples. The Congressman is especially notable because he is the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress. Abongo is notable because he is the first Muslim sibling of a major American presidential candidate.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just realized your refer to Ali as Cassius Clay. Sure he was notable whether or not he changed religions and took on a different name, however, because he did that it is at least arguable that he increased his notability with that action. Most people, by the way, accept his name change and refer to him as Ali.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course notability is not inherited, I am not disputing that. I also did not mean to infer Abongo/Roy is an extremist, there is no evidence to support that either. His religion, his sibling, his prominence in Barack’s book, all of these things go beyond inheritance to underscore notability. (You don’t inherit from a sibling, but it is a relationship that Barack himself highlights, as well as his relationship with his sister Auma—though she seems to be staying out of recent press mentions). Please note too, I did not create any version of this article, but I will defend it to the best of my ability.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was neither responding to your comments or accusing you of anything. I was expressing my opinion based on the facts. However, now that you bring it up, I do believe that being written about in a non-fiction book, no matter how extensively or by who, does not automatically confer notability. Also, we JUST had this discussion on AfD last week. Finally, it typically considered poor ettiquite to keep posting the same general arguments multiple times in AfD discussions.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::*I was under the delusion that I was saying new things . . . . sorry for the perceived breach.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, significant coverage by multiple reliable sources is the presumptive test of notability, so the burden shifts and the question becomes why isn't he notable? Most people haven't really addressed that and are arguing incorrectly that notability isn't established, being the brother of a notable person doesn't make him notable, deleted articles shouldn't be recreated, etc. The old discussion doesn't control thigns here - this is a different article. I don't see his being Muslim as having anything to do with his notability; it's unfortunte that became a (very minor, and unseemly) issue in the campaign and think for POV and BLP reasons we should have a very high bar before finding that someone being the unwitting party to a guilt-by-association political smear makes him notable. I deliberately avoided putting that material in the article - his notability comes from his interaction with his brother, the cultural context, and people's finding meaning in exploring the cultural connections there. Those who write news articles about that obviously find it worth noting. Wikidemo (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just the problem, Wikidemo - there is no significant coverage by multiple reliable sources of him - it's about his brother. Tvoz/talk 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone name another person who has had three major articles written about them (as the primary topic) in major places (ABC, AP, Sun-Times) and would be considered not notable? And that is just some of the coverage. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "no special treatment" default would be to leave this article alone because it meets WP:N. The WP:BIO guideline is crystal clear that substantial mention multiple reliable sources establishes notability. The "not inherited" thing isn't supposed to be a sword that defeats otherwise notable article subjects. Quite the opposite. It says that we as Wikipedians are not supposed to infer notability from a thing being a sub-class of another. One person being a relative another is not sufficient grounds for notability . It's not the case that it precludes notability. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see no difference between Malik Abongo Obama and Brooklyn Beckham. Both are closely related to notable people. Both have plenty of media coverage (more so in the case of Brooklyn Beckham). Both have multiple reliable sources establishing their existence, feature articles, etc. (more so in the case of Brooklyn Beckham). Simply put, what grounds exist for notablity for Malik Abongo Obama that doesn't exist for Brooklyn Beckham? This is an honest question, I'm not American, have no involvement in their elections, and little interest in the outcome. Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not finding any RS that has a whole article on Brooklyn Beckham. Nor do I think there would be anything of interest to say about a 9-year-old who hasn't done anything interesting. In this case he's given interviews and be the primary topic of serious news reporting. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's lots of articles about Brooklyn Beckham [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ... and a lot more. And he's not notable. How is this any differnt to Malik Obama? Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources mean that the subject of this article is independently notable. However, given the current state of the article, a merge elsewhere might present the material better. Skomorokh 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wouldn't mind explaining how this subject is "independently notable", I'd really appreciate it. I see no notability outside of his famous brother, and that's just not enough. S. Dean Jameson 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Abongo is the primary subject of at least two of the cited references. That means the subject passes WP:NOTE, though it looks like it has more problems with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Skomorokh 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not profiled outside of his relationship to Sen. Obama. And please refrain from claiming those who argue for deletion or merging are guilty of IDONTLIKEIT. Nearly all arguments presented here (by both sides) have argued well for their position. S. Dean Jameson 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he was profiled outside of his relationship with Obama, I said he was the primary subject of at least two of the cited references, which beyond all reasonable doubt satisfies WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. That is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. The arguments presented from the deletionist perspective not argued well, but are variations of "this person is related to a notable person and notability is not inherited from relationships, so [insert magical leap from logic here] this person must not be notable". Spurious, ignorant of the reliably-sourced coverage staring them in the face, and not to be given any credence whatsoever. Sincerely, Skomorokh 00:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say hold the insults and stick to the facts. You misrepresent the arguments of those arguing for deletion, and call all of us "deletionists", which is not appreciated either. (In fact, I'm arguing for merging, not simply outright deletion.) No source mentions him outside of the relationship with Barack. He holds no notability on his own, period. At some point, perhaps his profile will rise, and he will merit a separate article. At this time he does not. S. Dean Jameson 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is out of line - I for one have read all of the sources more than once and have concluded that they are not primarily about Malik/Roy/Abongo except perhaps the AP piece, but it too says little or nothing about him independent of Barack; the Sun-Times is merely a short blurb expanding on their family tree article; the Nairobi Nation piece only barely mentions Malik in passing - listing his name and saying his wife never met Barack and noting that he wasn't even there to talk to the reporter writing the article - this source confirms that he exists, and that's about it; the others are about a very minor campaign flap involving the Jerusalem Post and Brit Hume which doesn't belong as a source to this article at all as it has nothing to do with a theoretical biography of a notable person. No independent notability has been demonstrated, even if you insult people who disagree with you. As for arguing "from a deletionist perspective" - your characterization assumes facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say. Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4[edit]

  • Delete The guy is clearly not notable by himself, and has only featured in the media due to him being related to Barack Obama. Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid criteria, and the precedents set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Giggs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romeo Beckham amongst others, are good places to start the argument against keeping it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. Sole claim to notability lies in being the half-brother of a Senator. May be mentioned in Early life and career of Barack Obama, but on his own is a nonentity, even if he has gained passing press mention because of his famous relative. Biruitorul Talk 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, I missed that article. I support a merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama. - brenneman 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Since a rampant merge mania throughout the project would equate to separating out from the whole of Wikipedia a concisely alphabetic Wikimicropedia of essential, short pieces from out of a Wikimacropedia of information arranged by subject, the philosophical question of whether this is the direction WP should go or not should be addressed somewhere. Not right here, though.   Justmeherenow (  ) 01:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the closing admin If current trends continue there will be no consensus to delete. You can still give your opinion on the claim of notability. If you agree that this person is not Wiki-notable, is perfectly okay to close with This person is not independently notable, but enough editors disagree that WP:CIVIL, WP:IAR, and the desire to prevent a riot demand the article stay until there is a consensus to delete. Assuming there is no consensus, this will be one of those cases where the "will of the people" or rather the "default keep when there is no consensus" trumps whether this person actually is or is not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you reached that conclusion, David - this is the second AfD whose trend looks to me toward delete or merge again. I'm clarifying my comment on this which always was that there should not be a separate article, because of lack of notability, but as I said he is or can be amply covered in Barack Obama Sr.#Children. For this purpose, delete, merge, and redirect are not all that far apart - no one is saying his name should be expunged from the encyclopedia, just that he doesn't warrant a separate article on notability grounds. Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barack Obama is not just a senator. He is the [almost official] nominee of the Democratic party for president. He is a historic figure regardless of the outcome in November. To refer to Abongo as "the half-brother of a Senator" is not an accurate depiction of the lives of either of these two men.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Merge, Merge. Gods, I barely see the debate here. Independent notability is dreadfully lacking. -Rushyo (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He has enough coverage to pass WP:N, and the coverage is bound to get stronger. I've read he is (or at least, a while back, was) the only Obama sibling still in Kenya. A U.S. presidential candidate and possible future U.S. president having a brother who isn't a U.S. citizen, living abroad in his native land seems to be unique, and he is a strong, living, family link back to Kenya, likely Barack's strongest family tie there. At times, according to the Kenyan press, he's acted as a spokesman for the Obama relatives there. He's likely to be of continuing interest, and the article could give some insight into Obama's complex family past. It isn't worth trying to strictly enforce the idea that his notability needs to be independent, a rule meant for more run-of-the-mill relatives -- this is a commonsense exception. Michelle Obama's notability isn't independent either. Noroton (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, inasmuch as he may well be notable at some point in the future. However, he is not notable now, which is why this article should be cut down and merged with the Barack, Sr. article. (BTW, comparing him to Michelle Obama is just a bit hyperbolic, I think. She has had extraordinary amounts of coverage. Malik/Roy/Obongo has... well... not. S. Dean Jameson 03:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need extraordinary amounts of coverage to be notable. You need to pass WP:N: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As Michelle Obama proves, commonsense exceptions are made to the independent notability standard. And there's also a Barack Obama, Sr. article, which passed AFD twice. Here's what that "notability is not inherited" dictum actually says: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). Significant coverage means WP:N. The WP article's sources include a full news article about him and a good amount of information on him from a number of other sources. And it isn't as if there's no prospect of him getting more and more coverage. Last month the Daily Nation of Nairobi reported, Through a spokesman, Mr Malik Abong'o Obama, the family said some people have been camping at their home [...]. A 2006 AP article states, Barack Obama Sr. died in car crash in 1982, leaving three wives, six sons and a daughter. All his children, except his son Malik, live in Britain or the United States. (I got these sources through newsbank.com, which is subscription-only. This website reprints the first article. I can't find a free version of the other one on the Web.) There is a need for a Wikipedia article when rumors about Obama's past are rife; having this article makes it easier for Wikipedia to describe Obama's complex family. It's for the good of the encyclopedia that we make an exception in a quirky circumstance. Sorry if this is confusing: I'm saying that you can believe, as I do, that this passes Wikipedia notability standards, or, if you think it doesn't, this is a good commonsense, limited exception. And we have the Barack Obama Sr. precedent, showing that there's a standard practice developing for this kind of circumstance where information about extraordinary family members can tell you more about the more famous individual. I don't think this is likely to fit into a mere section. Noroton (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (((added new second sentence and new ending -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC))))[reply]
    I read the article, and read it again, and read it again. I can't see how this fellow is an "extraordinary family member". He doesn't seem even slightly extraordinary. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not missing anything. There's nothing extraordinary about him, save the fact that he's Obama's half-brother. S. Dean Jameson 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both missing the fact that the subject is in a position far more important than the kind of relative that had been contemplated in "notability is not inherited", and even that allows for an article. His importance to the rest of us is much more like Michelle Obama and Barack Obama, Sr. or Prince Henry of Wales (to head off the inevitable objection: I'm not saying he's as notable as any of them, I'm saying his notability is, like theirs, not based on his accomplishments). It is extraordinary that a possible future president of the United States, someone the public is still getting to know, has a native Kenyan brother. It's unique, it's why he's already gotten WP:N coverage, and it's worth encyclopedic treatment in an article for the reasons I've already given. Noroton (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Barack Obama becomes Prez, then Michelle Obama, poor woman, becomes First Missus, the de facto queen of the US. Obviously she's already a confidante of her husband's and she's probably an advisor too but must pretend not to be. Her husband wouldn't even exist without his pop. Prince Henry of Wales strikes me as having no importance whatsoever but I believe that he's financed by British taxpayers so I suppose that they want to know what they're getting for their money. Meanwhile, M A Obama looks likely to be invited to some events and might be an occasional guest at the White House: a bit different. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being notable for being someone's relative doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. --AniMate 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or merge. This article is really amusing. What exactly makes Malik Abongo Obama notable? 5 out of 8 citations (63% of the article) are from Barack Obama's political autobiography where acknowledging all of your relatives (real and imagined) seems to be the publishing flavor of the month. The MSNBC article is the only reliable source about him found in the article meeting our notability requirements, and that (again) is published solely because of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. There is nothing in that article of any substance. Instead, we're told fluff like he lives in Kenya (so what?) In it we learn other really notable things, too, like "Malik and his brother Barack were best men at each other's weddings" (and...?), that he has "interaction with Barack Obama" *gasp!*, and (the funniest of all), some miscommunication about whether Malik may or may not think that his half-brother Barack is (or was) a Muslim *gasp!* (Incidentally, that last source -- Political Punch -- is a blog). I ran a LexisNexis search for major mentions that might meet our notability requirements (i.e., articles from reliable sources about him). 2 articles surfaced. Both were from obscure newspapers based on the same subject. The titles say it all: "OBAMA'S BROTHER: Obama will be good for Jews 'DESPITE MUSLIM BACKGROUND" and "Malik Obama: As president, my brother would be good for Jews". Notable? C'mon...J Readings (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guidelines re citing self-published blogs say that to determine that some blog happens to be by an individual identifiable an ABC News' senior national correspondent (ie Tapper) is more than just OK, it's gold. (That is, if Tapper gives info worth including.)   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but what you just cited was a "historical archive" -- it's neither a policy nor a guideline nor even a bottom-of-the-barrel essay. As far as the Community is concerned, it's irrelevant for this (or any other) AfD until consensus is reached to establish its status. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, J, sorry to throw some guideline at ya that's NOT even one! Anyway my point is that Tapper's blog is not self-published but an authoritative guy whose online jottings are published by a pretigious news organization.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."----WIKIPEDIA: VERRIFIABILITY ("SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES")

  Justmeherenow (  ) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G4. This article was deleted by AfD just a few days ago, it was apparently recreated under a different name 28 mins later. I have no opinion on whether the article should exist or not, although my own searching on Factiva and GALE turned up few independent sources confirming notability (see J Readings's comments above mine as a product of a similar search). Orderinchaos 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absurdity of this astounds me. Haven’t all of us heard of the conflict in the Middle East regarding Arabs and Jews? Aren’t we aware of the actions of 9/11? Are we not aware that some believe Muslim extremists are one of the greatest threats of our times? Thomas Friedman even wrote on this topic recently in the NY Times. He didn’t mention Abongo, but he did mention Obama’s obvious ties to Africa.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I am now seeing a WP:POV-pushing reason for wanting this article to remain that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's policies. I am trying hard to assume good faith, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid drawing similarities between your statements in the entry above to the old "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" interrogation method. This page is about whether or not an article on Obama's half-brother belongs in Wikipedia. It isn't about any of those topics, and you are not helping things by bringing them up. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.  Frank  |  talk  20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asserting that one of the top writers (Friedman) in America mentioning Obama's father's family is not relevant to this discussion? Yes I have a point of view--simply that Abongo is notable. I think that's perfectly appropriate.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm asserting that all the political issues you've raised have nothing whatsoever to do with the point of this page, which is still whether or not an article on Obama's half-brother belongs in Wikipedia. Malik is not an advisor to Barack. He is not a political expert. He is not being touted as a potential member of any [potential] Barack Obama cabinet. His only reason for having an article is that his brother is famous, and that simply fails WP:N on its face. And, I would add - any presumption of notability because of the fact that he is the first of something (anything) appears to be WP:OR without reliable sources to back it up. Comments like "as far as I can tell" are good indicators of this.  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability can indeed arise out of context. It seems that those arguing for deletion, are not aware of or are ignoring or ??? the context that indeed makes Abongo/Roy/Malik? notable. Also, it's a discussion page. Even if you don't find these things relevant, I do.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a sibling who is the first Muslim sibling ever (as far as I can tell) of a major U.S. presidential candidate is blindingly notable. He is not, however, an extremist.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note I believe the arguments saying he is not notable are made in good faith, but there seems to be a failure to acknowledge this elephant in the room that so many appear to not see or are not willing to admit that they see.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (hope this link works) It's Friedman's recent piece called "Obama on the Nile." NY Times June 11th. Obama's father's family is referenced--which of course includes Abongo.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE There is absolutely no mention of Roy/Abongo/Malik Obama in this Friedman article. Enough is enough - Utahredrock, stop posting political comments and irrelevant links here - they are totally out of line and disruptive. You've been very clear in your position on this, and you're not helping it by repeating yourself and ignoring what people say to you. This is about Malik Obama, and his notability or lack of same, and whether he should have an article on his own. A piece that mentions that Obama's family and nothing about this individual is irrelevant. The word "brother" doesn't even appear, let alone this brother. Stop it already. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen. UtahRedRock seems to think that if he makes enough arguments to keep, it will somehow change the current count of 26-13-5-1 in favor of deleting this thing, a clear consensus with 32 of 45 people believing that this man is not notable enough for his own article.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you reach that conclusion from the count, but that's an inaccurate summary. First, six of the "deletes" were speedy delete for procedural reasons with no substantive arguments given - those can be discarded off the bat. Also, the objections were sourcing and notability - the article is expanded considerably and a number of sources added since nomination. The early "votes" didn't consider this. A few seem to be arguing entirely on POV grounds - claiming that the article shouldn't be allowed because people might coatrack on it. Next, it's not a vote. Many to most of the delete opinions are some variation on "notability is not inherited", which doesn't apply here - that's an essay to begin with, and it's a misreading of the essay. If you got to the people who are actually discussing notability, which is what the nomination is all about, a majority of people who reach that question on the merits are saying it's notable.Wikidemo (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said that he's not notable. (I note that at least one person above has said that he's "incredibly notable", a statement that I might agree with.) One reason adduced above for his notability is that he's (gasp) Kenyan. (Next, perhaps somebody will point out that he's not "caucasian".) Such notability! -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of deleting the article; but my own desired outcome (and the veracity of those figures) aside, I'm mystified by the notion that 71% (=31/45) is a "clear consensus". Or do you use "consensus" to mean "majority"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that also considereing the last afd a week ago, that 71% here would be consensus to delete. Remember too, that it's not a straight counting of the numbers, and that some articles have even been deleted with far less percentage wise --T-rex 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD has little bearing here. The 71% figure is more than a bit misleading, as I said. Of the people who actually address the issue of notability half or less are urging deletion. And that argument cuts both ways. If we're not counting the numbers, why argue that 71% is consensus? Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about the numbers, but pointing out that if I were the closing admin to look at this right now, I personally would delete the article. My hope is that they won't take your odd opprach of discounting any reasoning that disagrees with you. --T-rex 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please keep an eye on civility there? I'm not discounting those who actually discuss notability - just pointing out that a number of the "speedy" votes are utterly wrong on deletion process, and don't reach notability, so they're impertinent. Closing administrators can and do dismiss arguments as invalid on their face. Moreover, the oft-repeated "notability is not inherited" comment is a weak argument however many people make it. If I were a closing admin I would probably notice that more people are voting delete than keep, but that a substantial number of people have thoughtful reasons to keep it, and the article seems to meet the notability guideline, so the burden is on those advocating for deletion to explain why the article is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on civility? What is wrong with my civility? I just want to point out that there is nothing wrong with arguing that notabilty is not inhereited (as his realtionship with Barack is the only legit reason to keep). Also this really should have been deleted per G4, The article was recreated a whole hour after the last AfD closed as delete. Those arguing for speedy deletion probalby have the most sound argument here. And if you want to question my civility again, please go fuck yourself --T-rex 03:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could G4 possibly apply? There are two criteria that must both be met (article substantially the same, does not address reason for deletion) and neither are remotely met. The matter has been discussed thoroughly at WP:CSD in a variety of contexts, and the language is quite deliberate. CSD is deliberately not attempting to discourage re-creation of articles that had been deleted on notability grounds. This is such a basic point about CSD it isn't worth discussing. No closing admin would give weight to the fact that the article, in different form, had been deleted for lack of sourcing.Wikidemo (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is substantially the same as the one that had been deleted an hour prior. Furthermore from what I read on one of the notice boards (I forget which one), it was more along the lines that this was going to be treated more like a deletion review rather than a typical AfD. --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very good wikilawyering. The actual test is "substantially identical." The new article is more than twice as long, with eleven reliable sources (eight citation sources, three additional unlinked ones) where the original had one. It's implausible to call this[11] "substantially identical". This is an AfD, not a DRv - that's the point. AfD goes to substance, should an article be on Wikipedia. DRv goes to process, was the process followed properly. If it were a DRv, the process was correct and the closure reasonably legitimate - so deletion of the article in that particular form was not inappropriate. Now there is a new article in a different form that addresses the question of notability, so the old review does not apply. Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the definition of consensus A 4-2-1 ratio of delete/keep/merge doesn't necessarily mean consensus. Even a 100-1 !vote is not consensus if the 1 is prepared to take it to deletion review. The closing admin will know there was consensus if there is no request to review. There are a number of strong keeps and the closing admin will have to read those comments carefully before closing as "delete." The difficulty with this AfD is 1) we don't know if the speedy-delete proponents also favor deletion based on merits, and we don't know if the 7 or so who simply said "merge" want the article history preserved or not. Right now I count 27-15-7 delete/keep/merge. This could be as much as 34-15 for deletion or it could be as little as 21(+6 procedural)-22 delete/keep-history. 27 to 22 with several "strong keeps" is good enough to argue "no consensus." The closing admin is going to have to read all the comments on this one and be prepared to defend his decision one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friedman states "Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father’s family was of Muslim heritage." Fair enough, that does not specifically mention Abongo. But Abongo is part of his father's family and is himself Muslim. Agreed Tvoz . . . enough is enough. Keep or delete, if Obama stays prominent, this article will appear in WP eventually.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article saying nothing about him does not indicate that he is notable. The fact that this source is even being brought up to try and create some notability should be telling in and of itself --T-rex 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, User:T-rex, being bested at debating tricks doesn't prove any lack of notability, either. Sure, User:Utahredrock and me ain't lawyers [to be candid, as are some of the best commenters in Wikipedia forums such as these] but let me try my hand at that piece of evidence he'd produced. [Pauses to glance Utahredrock's document.] Such commentatary as Friedman's [hands bailiff paper marked exhibit A] will establish Barack Obama's Kenyan family as notable----sure, if not individually, then collectively----[now mumbles] and for the reasons to which, um, our expert witness [ahem] User:Wikidemo has already testified); [speaks clearly again] yet I'll also show that Mr. Obong'o has been described within local Kenyan news coverage as the family there's spokesman. [Hand bailiff exhibit B]....   Justmeherenow (  ) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Yet another thing, if the above user is right, 45 people have commented on this page (I didn't do a count) then hmmmmm is there something more going on here? Why would 45 people be interested in a non-notable person? It's just a question.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many people commenting on an AfD does not prove that the subject of the article is notable. That's one of the most egregious displays of a lack of understanding of this process I've seen in my short time participating at AfD. S. Dean Jameson 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am doing my best to learn the processes here. I still think it's an interesting point. 45 editors weighing in . . .--Utahredrock (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been trying to help you understand how things go, but it's like we're talking right past you for some reason. You're not hearing us. Whether 45 or 4 editors comment at an AfD doesn't affect the notability at all. Even the "keeps" here will tell you that. S. Dean Jameson 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to discourage anyone, but Utahredrock has made his/her relatively minor points a few times - we get it already, and repeating it does tend to be a distraction. Yes, some of those calling for deletion doth protest too much. But that's tangential in that it doesn't bear on the weight of their arguments. Likewise, MO's being a muslim convert (as well as a reformed drinker, etc) does add some interesting context to the article even though it's barely in the article. But that in itself isn't an argument for notability. The underlying question in a notability-related AfD nomination is whether the subject of the article meets the technical standards (non-trivial mention in multiple reliable sources) or the underlying notability standard (worth reading about; enhances Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage and people's encyclopedic understanding of the world) Wikidemo (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5[edit]

Comment. Notability is not inherited, true, and if we were talking about Albert Einstein's brother this would be a valid point, but lets face it, this is the world of politics and several points must be raised: A) the American political scene is slowly developing dynasties, from the Kennedy's to the Bushs; B) the political parties use and exploit their candidates (or the opposing candidates) families as strengths weaknesses, I'll explain: if Malik was an international arms dealer he would be thrown into the lime light so hard it would be impossible to say he was not notable, this even if before he was totally unknown; the same would be true is he was a monk helping the poor a sickly in some region. C) if his circumstances were somehow related to the political scene the press coverage would be immense: for instance if he had recently lost his job working in the US auto industry or was a US GI in Iraq. He is none of these, and my examples are extreme, but there is little doubt from the growing press coverage that he is entering notoriety. Even if he was 100% average (married, two children, house, car, job etc) and had no past scandal etc, but the press still seized upon him with headlines such as "Obama's Brother: Malik, Your Average Guy", he would have notoriety, become the worlds most famous average guy. D) Everything relating to US presidents and to a lesser degree, candidates, is seized upon and becomes famous, please see this example: Socks (cat); is this inherited notoriety, yes, but it is nevertheless notoriety and is the exception that confirms the rule. E) How can we measure this notoriety? I think from the press coverage, and the references show these to exist. Malik Abongo Obama is becoming famous in Africa, the Arab world, The US, and slowly the rest of the world. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, Czar B, the "pet" said by (a cartoon in) the Guardian to be (and I quote) the World's Most Powerful Cat? S/he's believed by me to be, in actual fact, the devious mastermind behind Wikipedia's ruling cabal.   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other political dynasties, Malik will not be running for any american office (because he is not american) --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what, most of the members of the referred dynasties do not run for office, but many still have notoriety that is clearly inherited. Nor do I think that Barney will be running for US President any time soon. Oh, and of course Malik may become a U.S. citizen, so the future tense must be used with some caution. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
correction: in my above edit I insinuated that Barney will not be running for US President. My apologies, this was said in haste. There is in fact a precedent: Bill the Cat ran for president in the 1984 elections and again in 1988 as candidate for the National Radical Meadow Party. My understanding is that he may have been barred from the 1984 elections by a stupid technicality: he was dead at the time. Apologies, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just not true. No matter how many times (and how many ways) people say it, no one has notability "that is clearly inherited." Malik may well become notable. He may become notable very soon. He just isn't notable right now. S. Dean Jameson 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "inherited" slogan is causing more confusion than clarity - obviously and undeniably a vast number of people are notable for reasons that arose out of being someone's family member. You are right that the question isn't who the family member is, but are they notable as things stand. In Malik Obama's case and in all the others, the answer is that people took note of them because of circumstances relating to their family. It makes no sense to say that we will discount any circumstances that came from family relations, when evaluating notability. In that case then obviously, Billy Carter, Socks the Cat, Michelle Obama, and the entire British royalty, are not notable. So that is a dead end. It does make sense (though I do not agree) to argue that looking at the sources, the person has truly not been noted in the way or to the level that we would respect as being worth writing about here. You could also say (but I do not agree) that the relationship between a person and his relatives is simply something we do not cover here as being worth note. But if so, what is your test for notability, if not: (a) many people in the world think it is worth noting, and/or (b) significant / nontrivial mentions in multiple reliable sources? Wikidemo (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Putting aside the Billy Carter and Socks (the cat) articles -- which also might be AfDs in the near future (you never know), it's ironic that Wikidemo brings up the Michelle Obama article. To be honest, I would say that's a fairly well-written article about a potential First Lady of the United States that makes good use of a wide array of reliable sources that offer significant coverage. The Malik Obama article, in contrast, simply is not. The reason for the big difference is made obvious in the lead section of the currently contested article: Malik Obama[1] (also known as Abongo (Roy) Obama, born c. March, 1958[2]) is the half-brother of presumptive Democratic party U.S. presidential nominee Barack Obama. He is one of four children of Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr. with his first wife, Kezia. That's all it says. Does the body text offer us any salient facts to demonstrate his notability? No, and therein lies the rub for me. The sources themselves don't allow us, as editors, to create an intelligible article about Malik Obama because the very small handful of journalists apparently mentioning him -- forget about Barack Obama's autobiography (which is arguably *not* independent of the subject) -- were unable to find much of anything notable about the subject on which to write. Instead, we're told he's a Kenyan (and?....); that he shared some personal issues with Barack Obama (and?...); that he's (*gasp!*) visited the United States (and?!...). What else? I'm still not convinced, in all good faith, why Malik Obama should have his own article. There is (1) no significant coverage of him in order to write an intelligible article and (2) there is no presumption that any further reliable sources will surface to meet notability. Why would there be? The same handful of journalists covering trivial aspects of him now never covered Malik Obama before, suggesting the little coverage that exists is nothing more than a flash in the pan. J Readings (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not ironic - just pointing out the logical flaw in the argument. Are your saying that your standard for notability is "makes good use of a wide array of reliable sources that offer significant coverage" - and that articles devoted entirely to him by Associated Press, Chicago Sun Times, and the leading newspapers of Israel and Kenya is "no significant coverage"? That's a legitimate opinion but it represents a significant departure from the notability standard. If I may toot my own horn the Malik Obama article is solidly written and sticks to the sources - it is a bio article, not a Nobel Peace Prize application. We do not require people to be of earth-shaking importance, only that they be worth noting, as demonstrated by sources. The salient facts in the article are several fold. First, he has become a representative and spokesman for the African side of Obama's extended family - issuing statements, arranging contacts. For that his statements get worldwide attention and he has taken some heat. A lot of heat actually - I've deliberately avoided on POV and BLP grounds getting into his being an icon for the anti-Obama rumor mongers. Second, his interaction with his brother and the American political process highlight a cultural phenomenon that affects the whole family starting at least with their grandfather, and much of Kenya - the "lost" (per term used in source) people who exist in two worlds, moving out of the village and becoming part of Kenya's urban culture and sometimes world events, yet still keeping ties to their ancestral home. That's why I drew a comparison to Mzoli's, a dining establishment and nightclub in Africa that is apparently unremarkable if popular for the food they serve, the music they play, and their gross income, but has drawn attention for being a bridge between worlds and for getting caught up in national politics. Speaking of Michelle, Malik was best man to the wedding of the possible President and First Lady - and the possible president was best man to his wedding. Everybody's life is potentially remarkable, in the right context, if they are tied up in world events. It's not really for us to judge - it's for the world outside of Wikipedia to judge whose remarkable lives they wish to take note of. AP, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Chicago Sun times, Daily Mail, ABC News, East African, Daily Nation, Media Matters, and Israel Insider all saw fit to take note. We shouldn't blind our eyes to that simply because we think the life of an African accountant and political consultant does not matter. If we stick only to the people who have achieved personal greatness through objective personal accomplishments we miss a very rich part of humanity, and lose encyclopedic coverage of what the world is actually all about.Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to pause to answer some people who denigrate Barak Obama's autobiography as a reliable source, or as support of notability. A great number of prominent politicians and others have told of their lives through autobiography, from Benjamin Franklin through Malcolm X. Sorry if other aspects of the analogy are inapt, but a number of Malcolm X's family members are known mainly through the Autobiography of Malcolm X, which he co-wrote with Alex Haley. Thus we have stub articles for Abdul Aziz Omar, Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm Shabazz, Qubilah Shabazz, etc. From The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin we have a source for Sarah Franklin Bache and Benjamin Franklin Bache. Being known through the writings of others in a famous book? We know Socrates mostly through the very-unreliable source, Plato, who created a mostly fictional version. We know Black Elk almost entirely through Black Elk Speaks. That's the essence of tertiary sourcing isn't it? Wikidemo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Denigrate? Please, there's no need for hyperbole. I'm sure it's a lovely political autobiography as far as these things go. But you're still missing the point. The Obama autobiography mentioning family members does not support our notability requirements at all because there's no reason to believe it's an independent, third-party source that is not affiliated with the subject. After all, there is a direct affiliation there. Consequently, the Obama autobiography is really irrelevant for establishing any objective notability for this AfD. J Readings (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Franklin Bache too? By that reasoning autobiographies are never reliable sources because by definition every person treated has a relationship with the author. Unless it's fictionalized - fictional characters are creations of the author (e.g. Dean Moriarty, Carlo Marx, Don Juan Matus, etc). Wikidemo (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oy! First somebody discounts the Guardian's witness as to the vast influence of that sleek-and-furry white-mittened demigod of a pet Socks the cat, now somebody discounts the scholarship conducted by UCLA proving that there was a permanent entrance into the extra-earthly dimension of reality without death by the renown sorceror don Juan Matus.   Justmeherenow (  ) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough reliable sources, with enough coverage, for us to write a half-way decent article on him, and people have done so. That's the basic criterion for notability, and the reason for the basic criterion - to guide us towards writing decent, informative useful articles. Does having a notable relative detract from notability?! Suppose all these sources had no mention of his famous bro, and nobody knew he was related to a presidential candidate. Suppose some eagle-eyed editor amassed all of them, and wrote an article based on them, and alas, it came up at AfD. Then I know that I, and I daresay many others would vote keep. We might scratch our heads as to why major papers and news outlets were giving us information about this guy in Kenya, but then say: "Who are we to judge?" Is it really consistent with the general practice and philosophy of wikipedia to put our individual notions, here, of notability, above those of reliable sources? (Cf WP:NOR). No.John Z (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, that doesn't prove Notability, it proves Verifiability. And there are literally millions of people who have been written about in multiple newspaper articles who aren't encyclopedically notable. Notable enough for the tuesday paper and notable enough for an encyclopedia aren't the same thing--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think I know the name of the guy that Obama walked past last week. He got a mention in a newspaper - let's have an article on him, his dog and the guy who cuts his hair. Geez, the Obama fanclub is running Wikipedia now. Perhaps we should rename it Obamapedia while we're at it. John Smith's (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remain civil. Calling those who disagree with you (of whom I am not one) members of "the Obama fanclub" and saying that perhaps we should rename the project "Obamapedia" is not helpful, and does not further the discussion in any way. S. Dean Jameson 18:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am civil. I am concerned how Wikipedia is being turned into a series of fanclubs for popular people. You may disagree but that is my view. John Smith's (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6[edit]

  • Keep I think there is significant coverage of him in reliable sources to establish his notability per WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. From the link you posted, a relationship to a famous person is not enough. There must have been "significant coverage" of the subject of the article which, in this case at least, there has yet to be. Every mention of him is in relation to Sen. Obama and/or an extremely insignificant "in passing"-type mention. This specifically fails the very test you posted as proof it should be kept. S. Dean Jameson 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, simply put, I think the coverage in the references of the article is significant and not just passing mentions. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the sources. There's nothing "significant" about his mentions in those sources. And what notability exactly, does this man possess, apart from being a half-brother of a famous man? S. Dean Jameson 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significance to me comes from the amount of coverage he has received, I would characterise passing mentions as a couple of lines or so. This article gives significant coverage for me and combined with the lesser coverage in the other sources establishes his notability. Notability comes from the coverage not from any actions or lack of actions. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability arises not from passing mentions in a few news stories for a relative of a famous person, but from both quantity and quality of the source material available to reliably source notable achievements of a person about whom one wishes to write an article. S. Dean Jameson 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that, if the sources feel he is notable enough to provide enough coverage for us to write a reasonable length article on, then I think the subject is notable for wikipedia, regardless of his achievements, and from reading WP:N and WP:BIO I can't see where this is contradicted. We are obviously not going to persuade each other I fear. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (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/Malik_Abongo_Obama&oldid=1220796737"