Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Abukar (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 keep. There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Abukar

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

Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN; has an interesting backstory that saw some coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG (all connected with candidacy). Previous AfD was no consensus. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") and WP:GNG. The Sydney Morning Herald covers her life extensively.[1] So does the North West Star,[2] The Courier-Mail,[3] Brisbane Times,[4] The Australian,[5] and many more, apart from being the featured face of a full episode of BBC Outlook.[6] I'm not quite sure why this has been renominated. Thanks. Lourdes 10:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A one-time candidate is in no conceivable way a "major local political figure" under WP:POLITICIAN. All of that coverage you listed is connected to her candidacy, which is WP:ONEEVENT. The BBC thing is interesting but doesn't get her there in my book, although I understand if you disagree. Frickeg (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frickeg, hope you're well. The sources I've listed out seem quite widely spaced out, so I don't see ONEEVENT affecting this article: Sydney Morning Herald and Brisbane Times covered her in July 2014. The Australian, North West Star and Courier Mail covered her in January 2015. BBC covered her in November 2015. ABC covered her in March 2016 after covering her in April 2015. Also, it's not her candidacy but her legacy that has put her in news; so I don't think the candidacy matters so much anyway. Thanks. Lourdes 11:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office will get some coverage for this fact, this alone is not enough to show they are notable nor grounds for keeping an article on them. Election coverage is all we have on her, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert hello. I understand your viewpoint. Not to disagree, but specific ~~full-page~~ significant coverages that I have listed above like the one in Brisbane Times does not mention anything about her candidacy or elections. What would be your view on sources like this? Also, what would be your view on the fact the coverages I have listed above span from 2014 to 2016. Thanks. Lourdes 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that full-page coverage, Lourdes (count the number of paragraphs that are about Abukar and the number that are making a broader argument). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Cordless Larry; it's five paragraphs on Leila in that source. I've struck the term "full page". Warmly. Lourdes 06:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Abukar appears to demonstrate notability beyond the usual coverage received by political candidates, especially the BBC program. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG supercedes the SNGs, she has significant coverage from third-party sources, definitely meets notability standard. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, how to keep this short? "Interesting backstory" is surely what articles about people should include. The coverage is not entirely about her (failed) candidacy, for example her awards have nothing to do with that. A programme about her on the BBC's World Service seems significant to me but I think it is no longer online. However, even the blurb about the programme[7] shows it was not restricted to her candidacy and the blurb has in itself material worth including. The Brisbane Times[8] and Sydney Morning Herald[9] articles meet my understanding of the notability criteria. They are not about her candidacy and we do not ask why newspapers consider people worth writing about we simply take account of their reports, providing we think their reporting is independent. Thincat (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a sufficient number of further references available, different from the ones in this article, demonstrating a broader recognition by the Australian society / community, hence notability and encyclopedic value. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator Frickeg aserted all coverage was connected with her candidacy. Well, I see coverage spread over YEARS. Candidacies last months, not years. Isn't it highly misleading to call coverage of her, outside the campaign period, "connected to her campaign". Sheesh. Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a source review, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 10 October 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.