Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niko Omilana (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was previously deleted and was then re-created in January 2023. Half of the article refers to a non-serious and unsuccessful political candidacy; fails WP:NPOL. The other half largely refers to a single YouTube stunt, with no demonstration of lasting significance or in depth coverage of Omilana himself. Looking at WP:YTN, most YouTubers with this number of subscriptions get deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as last time, other than the attempted run for the Mayor of London, which doesn't give this person much more coverage, it's the same low quality sources covering the "pranks". Being Youtube famous doesn't equate to notability here unless there are RS that back that up. Coverage in The Sun about running for mayor doesn't bring this past the point where it was deleted last time. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Silikonz💬 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a person who is famous. He was the most popular independent candidate in 2021 in the London mayoral election. I know it was for a joke, but he scored highly. The article refers to the political candidacy because it is the reason everyone knows him. Omilana is a person who is as important as Laurence Fox, if not more important. The reason this exists is because he was a candidate for the 2021 mayoral election of London. Anoymousgamer (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He did not score highly: he got 2% of the vote! We have an existing, agreed policy on this at WP:NPOL that is clear that people are not notable just for being candidates. A one-off unsuccessful candidacy can be covered under the election article; it doesn't need an article for the candidate. (Laurence Fox was notable as an actor, long before he became politically active, so that's why he has an article.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I've read the previous AfD and don't know for sure. The guy is funny and visible in news and media coverage including BBC, the Independent, BBC... here I found a new one https://www.thesun.ie/news/6829970/london-mayoral-candidate-niko-omilana/. I would keep the article but make it more humble and true encyclopaedic. Mozzcircuit (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is not a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL either — every candidate in every election always receives some campaign coverage and could thus claim to earn such an exemption, meaning that NPOL itself would be meaningless since no candidate for any office anywhere in the world would ever have to be measured against it at all anymore. A non-winning candidate gets a Wikipedia article only if either (a) he can show a credible reason to treat his non-winning candidacy as a special case of more enduring significance than everybody else's non-winning candidacies, or (b) he can show a credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article on those grounds regardless of the candidacy. But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.