Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses Ukpong

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 Draftify. All arguing for deletion expressed that the subject might be notable if sourced properly and that the creator should be given the possibility to work on it. So Why 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Ukpong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any reliable source about the subject to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will note that state legislators are granted a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #1, even if the sourcing in the article is currently inadequate, if they can be properly verified to have actually held the office claimed — so I'll withdraw my delete if somebody can find proper confirmation of the fact. But we have had instances of people who hoaxed themselves into Wikipedia by claiming to hold offices they hadn't actually held, so it's not enough to just assert that a person held office in a state legislature — we need to be able to verify that the claim is true before NPOL kicks in. But I can't seem to find proper confirmation of the claim on a Google search, aside from "sources" that are simply mirroring this article. So, again, I'll switch to a keep if someone with better knowledge of how to access Nigerian media archives can find proper confirmation that he held the office claimed — but it's not the claim to passing NPOL that actually passes NPOL, but the ability to properly confirm that the claim is true. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if this will be enough but here's a link that says "Moses Ukpong of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly for supplying us with useful materials." You can also check for more at 1 2 Zazzysa (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukpong1: Those are mirror passing mentions which cannot be verified and why do I think you might WP:COI issues to the subject? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in the first link, the words "Moses Ukpong of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly" don't actually clarify what his role was with the House of Assembly — it could mean he was a legislator, sure, but it could just as easily mean he was a non-notable staffer, such as a legislative assistant or a librarian. What we need is a source which explicitly states that he held a seat as a legislator in the assembly, not just one which links him to it in an unspecified way. And the second link apparently contains his name somewhere, but it's impossible for us to see the context in which his name appears because it's located somewhere other than the very small portion of one page that's visible as a "preview". Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand better now, i am no longer contesting deletion. Zazzysa (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete, till a source arises. Even though my spirit tells me the information on him being in the state assembly isn't false, I share the concern of Bearcat that we need at least a statement that show that he was elected as a member of the state parliament. I'm voting delete, not because article fails GNG but due to failure in meeting WP:verifiability policy and WP:npoliticians guideline.

This article gives more perspective to my eternal argument that making a case for inequality in the internet penetration of certain articles in third world countries is never a circular argument. Before voting, I spent about 15 minutes trying to retrieve the result of the 1999 and 2003 elections in Akwa Ibom State parliament, but as usual I practically found nothing. This is similar to what I experienced while working on Patrick Obahiagbon's article. I couldn't get a list of members of the Nigeria Federal House of representatives before, during and immediately after his tenure, I had to combine patches in references to meet WP:verifiability. These were federal legislators elected in 2003, 2007 and 2011, not 1980s or 1990s, yet no online document containing a list of election winners. That is the world we live in!

This is why I consider it unfair when I see some regular editors (some even Nigerian editors) join the bandwagon and try to apply exactly the same metrics of GNG used to assess western articles on some encyclopedic Nigerian topics. In my opinion, clinging on gng alone in establishing notability of core subjects tends to promote this bias unknowingly. I think gng will eventually get scrapped (or given lesser weight) in a perfect world of digital equality. Imho, basing notability on GNG alone is dogmatic, insensitive and promotes inconsistencies at various levels.

@Zazzysa Soft question: Did you read the link Bearcat provided? I'm curious to know why you think if it is proven that he's a state assembly legislator, it might not be sufficient for a keep (note: this question was before the follow up comments to your post). Darreg (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, GNG does not require that our sources be online ones — as long as the citations are reliable ones, we can cite stuff to print-only content. But the problem is that entirely waiving GNG just because a country's media might happen to have a weaker internet presence opens us up to the exact issues that waiving GNG anywhere else would: advertorialized content about people who make self-aggrandizing claims to passing an inclusion guideline but actually don't, inaccurate or biased content that violates WP:BLP, or outright hoaxes that don't actually exist at all. So we do have to depend on reliable sources, because that's how we keep from getting gamed by every aspiring musician who wants to gain publicity by falsely claiming to have had a hit single. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been observing your comments on AFDs and everytime I see your vote, its always comprehensive yet balanced; considerate yet policy-oriented and filled with so much knowledge in whatever subject area. If more Wikipedians can adopt your technique and do as much digging (both on the internet and policy-wise) as you do, the issue of systematic bias will rarely surface.

I understand you and what GNG is trying to avoid, but my theory is that we can attain verifiability without basing notability on gng. Nonetheless, the existence of gng increases the quality of articles especially the POV. But the summary of my submission is that there should be universal ways of assessing notability for all professions, organization, topics aside gng. These guidelines should be specific to these areas but applicable across board. We currently have some on Wikipedia, but many editors choose to ignore them most times and think everything is all about GNG.

Consider this hypothetical situation (I encounter such frequently), three reliable sources exists that interviews a subject, then I could find five sources that documents certain news about the same subject. Based on GNG, editors will say that interviews are not independent and routine coverage are not significant, but if the subject meets some other notability guidelines (like nsports, npoliticians, nentertainer, etc), I could write a decent article from the references I have gathered. Darreg (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be returned to draft space rather than outright deletion, to preserve the history of the article and to allow the creator to find (and source) official or reliable source material that address the central claim, that the subject served in the Akwa Ibom State parliament. I also think this claim of notability is ultimately true, but sourcing is required. --Enos733 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I could accept that as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2017 (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.