Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodjo Adabra

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 delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article is not notable at this point as academic, and the discussion was whether he is notable according to WP:GNG. Although some sources have been found, I am afraid the consensus is that they are insufficient to create notability as described by WP:GNG. I have no problems with moving the article to the draft; if there is any interest in working on the draft please ask me or any other administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kodjo Adabra

[edit]
Kodjo Adabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Google search "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" (weeding out results for an actor identified by IMDB[1]) returns 61 hits, only one appearing to be independent of him. That article has one paragraph about him along with one about several other West Africa-born authors. The source cited in the article is the student newspaper at the school where he is an assistant professor. The books listed likewise haven't attracted any substantial coverage that I can find in independent sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may consider his three published novels and his Doctoral Dissertation as notable works, he is a notable figure within African Literature, and should not be deleted just because my Wiki creating skills are still new (this is my first page, I am going as fast as I can, but I need to sleep now, thank you all for your critique, and my apologies for the sloppiness, I will continue soon)
The books have all been part of colloquiums and presentations at universities, and carry imortance regardless of the fact that no outside news source has written on them in mainstream media, they have attracted the attention of individuals and I will do my best to link internet references where possible.
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is a place for information of value, and this author has fled from a terrifying regime and found refuge to continue his writing, and you want to tell me it is 'not significant'? he got hunted out of his home country for being a critic of his government. He may not be the only person speaking on these issues, but his story is certainly significant, and he is a person of significance.
JuThere is plenty of information from independent sources out there, and although it is not worth much I will point out that the Lamron is a student-run organization that operates independently (though of course it focuses on the news of the campus, naturally)I will add more when I wake up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largo Plazo: interestingly, the same search you linked me here at "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" [2] returns 1,510 results. For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law. also notably, I may not be able to see some sources that are available to you in the U.S. or in other countries [3], and as a result, as I continue to expand this article through the help of Google from my location, anyone who can expand it from the U.S. may find success unique to mine, as I have no access to proxy servers located in the U.S.
Nolanpowers (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The typical Google results listing promises some large number of pages (I see 1,500 in this case), but once you start paging through you find that the list has ended prematurely with a note, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 65 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Again in this case, I click the link to show the "omitted results", and that brings me up to 139. The results given appear generally to be in the nature of inclusion in listings of authors or academics, contact information, acknowledgments, program schedules, and notes from the institutions where he has studied or worked. Take a look, by the way, at WP:ROUTINE. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The results of your Google Scholar search include three works that are by him, one by a mentee of his, two people thanking him for his support, one program schedule, one blurb from his own university indicating his nomination to serve as a peer reviewer for a publication, and one possibly substantial mention in this paper, though I have no way to tell how substantial it is without registering to use the site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law", no law prevents Google from displaying France-based results to a user in the United States. I run searches like this all the time, and routinely receive plenty of listings from countries all over the world. For comparison, search results for "mongo beti" include pages from Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Japan, Italy, and South Africa (that is, from top-level domains .ca, .uk, .fr, .de, .no, .jp, .it, and .za). —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively Weak Delete possibly Move to Draft namespace. I originally contested the A7 speedy deletion of the page (and I contend that being a political prisoner and published author is an assertion of importance). But upon further examination of the subject, I cannot find enough sources to justify the notability of the subject. I am slightly surprised at the lack of articles covering him outside of some student newspapers, but that is no excuse. I'm going to hold out as a weak delete in part because there might be some sources in french on the subject that we are over looking and in part because I feel bad for the new editor, who is having a rough first wikipedia experience. I think moving the articles to the draft namespace and having them go through the AfC process might be a possibility to see if more sources can be found over time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Page author wants it moved to draft space, so I believe that is the best course of action. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Move to draft namespace or delete (but preferably move to draft.) He is an assistant professor of French at a minor university, which is either WP:TOOSOON or simply not notable. I've tried searching for mentions of his novels in French, but I get webstores selling it, not secondary sources. The only secondary sources that do come up are university departmental web sites, a student newspaper, and a travel web site. It's not nothing, but it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • move to draft namespace or reluctant weak delete editor here, I contest that the Tennessee and Geneseo independently edited student newspapers are not notable secondary sources that add to the notability of this living biography page, my thanks to all for your patience on this first effort, I have not yet exhausted all research paths. I will have more difficulty than ever trying to find sources from Togo, I did not expect to need any of them, buy I think he made the newspapers on two occasions at least for his academic work that was considered intolerable activism in essence. Obviously I have a few things to consider, and I would only ask that if it must be deleted, may I be provided with a copy of the work in the creation for my own purposes until sufficient additional sources are in hand. Nolanpowers (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just out of praxis, mentioning that I translated this article here[4] into English (partially, and quickly, but with plans to return and smooth it over) and just today in going back, I not that in the French version, which already existed before I came along, and appears to be an established page, has interesting lack of notability to my (likely untrained) eye, why is this? is it because of association with it's author that gives it implied importance? I bring this up because in the English version that I created, emulating the French version through translation, was flagged as needing sources, so of course, I told myself, I will go and get them from the page that already is established in French, yet i was surprised to find the only source listed was an external link to the publication itself, the original source, and it's self description that provided the information for the wiki article. My apologies to the French article creators if me bringing this up gets this deleted, as I found the information useful, and I do not see why Wiki limits itself in regards to providing useful, encyclopedic style information on anything, even if the legitimate secondary sources are indicative of a rather small splash from his work so far, they remain significantly independent secondary sources, although it is true this sort of third world activism brought to the U.S. is common, and many academics usually stop their references at bigger names such as Jamaica Kincaid, to the people of Togo he has a unique role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to move to draft space as there is no practical possibility of an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating editor here again, lookin at article Joseph-Paul Strebler and it's one source that is questionably independent; comparing this biographical article with Kodjo Adabra's here. In light of this established page, I believe the two editorially independent student organized newspapers that have published on Kodjo Adabra, one on multiple occasions, as created in the article establishes sufficient notability as required. Furthermore the influence of this persons primary source, original works, writings mostly, have had observable repercussions, as is mentioned in the secondary source articles on this person. Some of these primary sources, for example the essay from his alma mater University of Lomé that appeared a threat to powers, are available, but I have not yet recovered them. The one source listen on the example page of an apparently acceptable establishment of sources to meet wiki criteria for notability of a simple missionary and bishop,Joseph-Paul Strebler , has only the religious establishments record book online noting this persons positions held withing the church at various times[5]. Comparatively, it seems quite inconceivable that this page, Kodjo Adabra, be considered for deletion, at least to me, although if this is due to the fact that I am new and this is my second week of creating only on Wiki, then please specify where my focus has mislead me, or what my blind-spot is, please be specific. Thank you all for your patience. Nolanpowers (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think editorial independence is all there is to it. It's WP:ROUTINE for school papers to cover what's going on at the school. IMO that isn't indicative of any notability at large. Others may disagree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating editor here again. It is his authorship that makes him notable, and of course there is a lot that comes with that, as all of the articles note, and your rebuttle, @Largo Plazo: doesn't address the entirely independent article from the undoubtedly well-known and notable traveltowestafrica.com[6], the domain of a magazine that describes itself as a magazine on 'lifestyle, times and tourism in the West African Sub Region'. Therefore the article should be kept; while some input on this talk page has been successful in approaching a conclusion, instead of some of the very cold and/or bureaucratic bits of input I am getting ,( which seem confusing to me and I don't know if I am just being tested as a new creator like it is some rite of passage to have to fight for, or if there are just hidden points of discrimination by some editors) recognition of clear established notability. I am also curious as to why my comparison of this page with the other page, Joseph-Paul Strebler was not addressed, and if is this not the right place to address this, then where might I find someone more informed on wikipedia, with an understanding of the process of reaching a final determination in cases of disputed notability.Nolanpowers (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I keep trying to explain to you: people are not deemed notable in the sense that the word is used on Wikipedia just because they've written a book @Largoplazo:*Comment I do not mean to assert this, nor is it my asserted premise for notabilityNolanpowers (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC). They are deemed notable if they actually receive note as a result of it. I am really not trying to test you. You just appear determined not to digest the sincere explanations I've been giving you. Regarding the Strebler article, you ask a good question: should that article be deleted? Perhaps it should. His notability isn't clear from the article. There's only one source, and Google returns no information that appears to qualify him for WP:N. Feel free to go ahead and submit that article for deletion. I may do so after a little more analysis, if only because the article has been there for a while and I want to be sure I don't miss previous discussion that may shed light on why it's still there. (I thought I'd already pointed you to the article about the perils of comparing articles!) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the answer for you about Strebler: WP:CLERGY, notability criteria particularly applicable to clergy. "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communion bishops are generally found to be notable." —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - my apologies, I do feel quite strongly that this is a notable article in accordance with Wiki's guidelines nonetheless. The notes about the Strebler article from WP:CLERGY do not justify notability in itself, as in the quote is says "usually" and Strebler does not appear to be a character of notability at all, yet you are willing to let that article stay based on this one criteria that is met (he's with the church), and a criteria that does not even establish notability, but as defined by wiki, just "usually" does so. I am not trying to delete the Strebler article, for me, this "usually" is good enough, and the fact that there is only 1 source listed on the entire page does not pose any problems to me here, nor has it posed anyone else any issue to raise that might lead to deletion. Thank you for , the perils of comparing articles, however, as a new creator, I find this is the easiest way to approach the problem, as the depths of 'how to create' in Wiki seems endless, and very little of it applies to this current effort of mine. I'm eternally grateful to all who have more experience than me and are joining in to make this a legitimate decision, however, I feel like I am learning more about how to find useless details that could render my observations of notability as defined by wiki. For example one of his articles was deleted based on copyright infringement, this despite the fact that I cited the reference that allows for use of this material within public domains (including wiki), so in light of this, before I just accuse everyone of racism or something equally worthless, I would like to plea to those more skilled and experience in Wiki than I to stop treating this like a trial where just because the article is a black man means it's guilty of no worthiness (I'm joking). The article has 3 independent sources (so far listed on the article, and with more coming, I promise, they do exist, but paper is less convenient that a website so please be patient) reporting on his works. I would kindly ask those of you who seem so determined to reject this article to actually read the sources first, you will see that they are not simply 'routine', and should not be written of as non-notable based on wiki's definition of 'routine articles'
WP:CLERGY says that for Wikipedia's purposes a person is deemed notable by virtue of being an bishop. It doesn't say to apply only the same guidelines as everyone else despite the fact that he's a bishop. Anyway, I already indicated that if not for that, the article would be eligible for deletion. So I don't know what you intended to get out of pressing it further. Your goal here was to understand why the article you created was different from this one, not to exercise your determination to have that article deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rest, you lost me at "racism". I suggest you read WP:Assume good faith, fast, and not even think to throw out a suggestion of such a motivation on someone else's part with absolutely no basis. That you would even think to suggest that here without having ever looked to see whether I was treating your articles any differently from the way I've treated hundreds of others and without noticing the articles about Africans and people of African origin that I've helped along is despicable. I sincerely hope you don't think that's an acceptable way to get your way in life. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largoplazo: you obviously did not read carefully enough ONCE AGAIN! my old friend! how your reading skills betray you ! at the end of the sentence, just for people who have similar difficulties in reading as you have displayed here, I will point out that at the end of that sentence in parenthesis, you will see the words "I'm joking"! believe it or not, in English, this phrase means the the things previously said were not actually serious, but rather said in good humour, with the intention of a laugh, to humans, laughter is enjoyable, I assume you will be happy to learn, and the idea that racism would be a real accusation after what has been said, is obviously absurd, ridiculous, laughable. However the article is about a black person, and I understand some people get nervous around racism (even as a terribly obvious joke) so I assume you will be happy to know that I am ready to forgive and forget. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For starters: Funeka Soldaat, Khayelitsha, Vulcan Society, ID Africa, Regions of Senegal. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every reference in the article so far but one is either from a school he was at , written by him, or presented by him. I maintain that if a person's note hasn't spread beyond his own campus, then he hasn't genuinely achieved note in the greater world. Before you accuse me of racism again for having said that, kindly check on the many, many other articles about which I've had similar discussions to see whether you think I am approaching this any differently from any other article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for @Largoplazo: the schools did not write the articles,and just to make extra double triple sure you get it, i was joking... I don't actually accuse you of racism... please read more carefully, your sloppy reading is causing a strain on our relationship, as you have repeatedly implicitly accused me of things, and as a person (with emotions) I am finding it very difficult to bear you as a sufferance. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read plenty carefully, including the part where you then said you were joking. But I assumed enough good faith in you that if accusing me earnestly of racism was the farthest thing from your mind, then you would have the sense to know it isn't something one should even joke about. Sorry, but that sort of "joke" is bound to backfire.
  • final point, if he were a clergyman, making his article notable, as we seem to all agree, the other points of note regarding his biography, as sourced, are worth noting in such an article. These sources have been acknowledged as independent on at least 3 separate occasions so far. As the creating editor, I am hoping for good faith of the community while I continue gathering further, less accessible, secondary sources, to augment the notability, in accordance with Wikipedia's purpose. Thank you all for contributing, it has been I believe roughly a week, and as a new user, I am looking forward to learning how this might proceed. Also I apologize profusely for what I imagine must be an abomination of format to more experienced users than I. Thank you. Nolanpowers (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops @Winner 42: sorry about that! Mea culpa. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, else move to draft or user space: The subject appears to just about meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC thanks to coverage in two (editorially independent) campus newspapers, The Daily Beacon [7] and The Lamron [8][9]. If they're not sufficiently substantial, Nolanpowers believes there are further sources they can find to establish notability, and I see no reason to deny them the chance. —me_and 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   21:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since his books are written in French I tried locating him in French literary magazines, but I don't know enough about them to have success. I also tried Le Monde, but that may have been silly on my part. I got the ISBN for his book "L'Exile" (ISBN 978-2351700228) and it is for sale at amazon.fr and FNAC. However, that's all I could find. Someone with better knowledge of French book review sources might have better luck. Also, his editor is listed as "Syracuse" but I can't find a French publishing house by that name, so I may be looking in the wrong place. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist, discussion leaning towards delete, but still unclear. Esquivalience t 23:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 23:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than DGG's revised !vote, below, there is a clear consensus that the article isn't suitable for article space, even if that goes only so far as moving it to draft or user space. That's fine with me as well. It isn't as though it's promotional or about a person of no consequence or an inadequately sourced BLP so that it must be eradicated from this site. I agree that the man is noteworthy; as soon as there's evidence of his having received substantial note outside of his immediate academic sphere, it will be fitting to have an article about him in the main article space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm changing to keep on the basis of his editorship of Peuples noirs peuples africains. I didn;'t spot that initially; the frWP article has been here from 2008, and I'll defer to it. I also see that the periodical is in 62 worldcat libraries. Considering the very low holdings of even good US academic libraries on Francophone Africa, that's substantial. I continue to think there's no point moving to draft unless there's the prospect of more information, but I don't see how I can really object to that as a compromise. This leaves no one but the nom wanting to delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular notability guideline you're going by when you cite this editorship as the basis for your revised !vote? Note that French Wikipedia may have different guidelines from English Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is uniform in it's guidelines, it exists as one concept and one community, many members have an active presence in multiple languages, and they hold to a uniform community standard of WP across the inevitable differences that come with having different languages. Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire the confident manner in which you stated this, but it's incorrect. This becomes obvious when you look at the guidelines across Wikipedias and see that each project's guidelines are discussed and updated independently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I was flagged to revisit this AFD) Curious about that policy. WP:ACADEMIC certainly specifies: "head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area" Is this an academic or a political journal? (fuzzy border, but still...) Was he head editor? AND, is this a policy that applies to editors of major political journals? (an issue in current AFD on Eamon Delaney).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. On that basis I'd have to say that would alter my stance—if he is indeed the editor of Peuples noirs, peuples africains and if that is indeed a major journal in its field. However, I don't see where User:DGG got the idea that Adabra is or has been the editor of that journal. He has contributed to it, according to the article this discussion is about. But there isn't a single article on French Wikipedia, to which DGG referred, that mentions both that journal and Adabra; the only article there that mentions Adabra is fr:Liste d'écrivains africains par pays. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've written to Kodjo, as he is a former professor of mine, and his literature and his person inspired me to create this originally, I do not believe he held an editing role for PNPA, however it is possible I am mistaken and I will follow up with any additional infos that are available. I'm certain that PNPA is highly regarded and very well known in the academic world, although it's subject is closely involved with politics, it is, to the francophone world, and outside as well, a very important publication of historic note, as the WP article in French displays.Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to close this as delete, for the reasons I stated above in my iVote. Although I, User:Largoplazo, User:DGG, and - to his credit - the article's creator User:Nolanpowers have made extensive searches in French and English, no one has turned up sources to support keeping under WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROFESSOR or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of community consensus where only 1, the nom, your, Largoplazo, is the only vote that remains calling just for deletion? Have you even read the other contributions to this AfD page? how about my comments on your talk page? how about the multiple calls for keep, and the fact that WP:GNG is met or WP:PEOPLE , through what right does your ignorance whether by intent or mistake give you any say to declare this a 'consensus'? Criteria have been met that define this article as meeting WP article standards. All you appear to be doing is clogging the AfD page with spams that ignore the establishment provided. You are literally the only one out of 6 votes that calls for outright delete, and you are the nominator! that is outrageous! The matter should be resolved by DGG's revised vote, as he explicitly states, in his reason for voting outright keep, the article meets criteria. You can't just go around deleting articles for no reason at all, and certainly not to get some sense of personal sense of closure for yourself! Are you an admin or what sort of power do you have that allows you to think you can behave so abusively for reasons that remain unexplained. You say you explained it in your iVote but your iVote did not explain anything that would justify deletion and additionally, your rather off topic comments/concerns about the article have been responded to, although you seem to have ignored these responses. Nolanpowers (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote tally and starting motioning towards conclusion @Largo_Plazo. The final bullet point that seems mostly to do with where within the thoroughly defined WP:CLASSES the AfD is, and as the creator, my thoughts on the subject won't be mentioned as they shouldn't have weight (mentioned in WP:CLASSES. As far as your assertion on consensus, we can be certain at least their is not unanimity, between two keeps, both revised; my own as the creator, and DGG, who has my thanks for his skillful observation as he notes to us in why he changed his !vote, as for the others who have contributed a !vote, excluding nom, the consensus leans toward move to draft, roughly weighing the 3 votes that remain we can see they all include 'move to draft' and two users have also included 'weak keep' in preference and 'or delete' as editors with mind open to find multiple potential decisions harmonious, or in their accord, the respect user in their written !vote contributions. My sincere thanks again to all thought and care to all here.Nolanpowers (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... how about the multiple calls for keep?" The only unreserved call for Keep seems to be yours (and I'm ignoring your attempts to make it look like there were three more of them). There's also a weak one. "... the fact that WP:GNG is met ..." You feel that way, but I've explained why I disagree. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable in my skepticism that someone whose coverage has thus far been restricted to his own institutions meets WP:GNG. It isn't a "fact" that WP:GNG has been met. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USER:DGG has voted delete. And that User:Nolanpowers is a new WP:SPA who rapidly created this article and also articles (speedily deleted) on Adabra's novels. Even so, the core problem remains that no one has found reliable sources, coverage in undergraduate newspaper is not sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USER:DGG has voted keep, his !vote was slashed out for reasons that I can't figure out but he even explains why he changed his iVote to keep, from his original vote, which was delete, but he admitted it was for hasty reasons that overlooked qualities of the person that qualify him to WP standards, you can see his reasoning above. Additionally, the fact that there are multiple student run journals, and they are both editorially independent, is by WP definition a legitimate secondary source, and the articles all have this man as the focus of the article, these journals should not be discriminated against simply because the editors are students who do this for free and not to make a living or whatever other reason you might seek out in your fight to discount the fact they are legitimate secondary sources. Also you are ignoring the secondary source that is entirely independent, granted it is only a simple travel magazine on it's website form, but all things considered, one must admit this HAS SIGNIFICANCE in it's publication on Adabra, and it is a qualifying secondary source. You have also entirely excluded DGG's reasoning as to why he changed his vote, which can be found above, and I know the page is a mess and that certainly in part may be caused by my newish-ness here but simply put, the aggressive deletion of any new page has not allowed the time for me to defend all of the articles I have put up. I should also point out that under the current secondary sources and the keep votes from me_and, DGG, and myself the one who opened the article, there is no justification for deleting this article, and while one of those votes is my own, that does remain a total of 3 that give a 'keep' or 'weak keep' as part of their vote. Nolanpowers (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG struck out his own "keep" with this edit after I pointed out that the basis he'd given for it was a misimpression. When you talk about how I'm excluding the reason DGG had given for changing his vote to "keep", you're overlooking his subsequent acknowledgement that his reason was the misimpression that I had pointed it out to be and that he had then changed his mind.
I didn't say anything about "discriminating against" the student papers on the grounds that the editors are students who do it for free, so that's a strawman argument on your part. You can talk about their "editorial independence" as much as you want, and if you want to consider that sufficient, that's fine, you've had your "keep" !vote. And I'll keep noting that the "editorially independent" media that have shown interest in his story nevertheless just somehow seem to be restricted to Adabra's immediate academic sphere. I consider that significant in determining real "independence", so, therefore, I have cast my "delete" !vote.
Yes, there is the Authors: Made in West Africa article. That's one source from outside his own immediate institutional sphere. A few more like that and there would be no argument for denying his notability.
By the way, see WP:!VOTE, because I don't think you've picked up on the reason for the exclamation points, which are used in boolean logic to represent "not". They aren't really conventional votes, because it isn't strictly majority rule. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove article and userfy or move to draft so article creator can keep trying, if he or she wishes. Quis separabit? 11:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I changed my vote above from "Move to draft namespace or delete, to a simple delete. Reason is that Nom was so insistent that I went back and searched again. Searched for his work in French. Looked as tthe sources. There simply is no claim to notability. If this person's work becomes notable, an article can be started at that time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If some of the most thorough searchers (DGG/E.M.Gregory) cannot find sources to show it's notable, then it definitely isn't. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. No point going to userspace, as it seems they'll never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing back to delete, some of the best editors have been unable to find anything to pass notability guidelines, so it likely will never pass them unless the subject receives significant coverage in the future. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two student newspapers provide detailed coverage of the subject, but they are affiliated with the subject because they are from people closely affiliated with his institution. This article from Travel To West Africa is an independent source that provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject but is not enough by itself to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    No prejudice to userfying and restoring if new sources surface in the future that establish notability.

    Cunard (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2015 (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/Kodjo_Adabra&oldid=1083980110"