Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango (3rd nomination)

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango[edit]

First off I want to say this is a well-written, well-researched article, and certainly passes most of Wikipedia's policies, including the ones on verifiability. But does it pass the biography policy? What has this poor woman done intentionally to gain press attention? It seems she was only a passing press target for a few weeks because she is a relation of the new US president. She does not pass the standards for inclusion nor the decency standard imposed by BLP. She is not inherently notable, there are 12 million illegal aliens living in the US. Nor is the fact she is the president's aunt inherently notable, how many people can name President Bush's aunt's name? In fact, she would be in absolute obscurity were the press not to muckrake her name and story up... in other words the mass amount of press coverage is misleading, and we do not need a full fledged biography when a simple redirect to Family of Barack Obama would suffice. -Nard 09:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced that WP:ONEEVENT applies here, as there seems to be no individual event that has been covered by the press. She is notable both for being a relative of Barack Obama and due to the controversy surrounding her immigration status. Both should be dealt with, and while the former could be merged to Family of Barack Obama the latter cannot, and while the latter can be covered in an article about the immigration controversy the former couldn't. Both should be treated together as both are about the same person. I think, therefore, that the relevant rule is WP:NPF, i.e. the article should be kept but we should ensure that no details are included that are not directly relevant to either of the reasons this person can be considered notable. JulesH (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JulesH. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Given that the subject has had plenty of non-trivial coverage from 3rd party sources, over an extended period of time, its pretty clear to me that she passes the notability guidelines. 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbralcorax (talk • contribs)
Keep per the very good arguments by JulesH Hobit (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this has survived several afds due to no consensus and the nomination looks like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED to me. Consensus can change, but give it more time.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of the topic includes Associated Press The New York Times and thousands of others. Also note the worldwide coverage of the topic. [1] [2] Hobartimus (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has several accomplishments of her own, and she is part of "America's most fascinating famous family." President Obama's entire family is noteworthy because of its diversity and geographic extent. She was mentioned in a very well-known, highly relevant bestseller book, Dreams of My Father, that is noteworthy in and of itself because it helped Barack Obama to pay off his student loans. She is part of the reason why the book sold so well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.236.15 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What exactly is "the decency standard imposed by BLP"? Do you mean Onyango's decency? I don't believe Wikipedia has a decency requirement for a person to have an article. Ward3001 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (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.