Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Anga

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Anga

The notability of this article is neither apparent nor established. Chidel (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 8 gnews hits. Mostly reporting his killing. most of the ghits I reviewed that would pass as WP:RS talk about the killing, so I'm thinking WP:ONEEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was an article requested from the systemic bias project. Francium12 (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to List of heads of state of the Republic of the Congo this person once held the position of head of state as part of a military council. Would be delete a Western head of state's article? Francium12 (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might if the article made no mention that he was a head of state! When I found the article, it made no mention of that fact; I had seriously considered whether there was an assertion of significance in the article or whether to speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with option to reconsider. Based on the fact that he was a co-head of state, the subject has a reasonable amount of importance. However, he was part of a ruling council, so the question may be how much can be written about him individually. (Analogy: not all members of musical groups are notable enough for individual articles.) The article is currently in a very weak condition, but I think the correct remedy right now is to expand the article. If after a month or two it isn't much more than "he was part of a ruling council and was killed," then a second AfD is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google book search turns up this amongst many hits. Many of the results are in French which I cannot read but there appears to be sources writing about him in some political context. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The user in question has nominated six articles I have created in the space of a day (See John Frawley,Pierre Anga,Jan Gunnarsson,Douglas v Hello!,Kaye v. Robertson and the probablly non-notable 2009 United Kingdom heat wave) While all of these articles need improving they are nominations which might not have been made had the user read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Francium12 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No "point" is being made here or elsewhere except your ongoing failure to WP:AGF and the non-notability and otherwise woefullness of the articles in question. Chidel (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could improve the article! Just a suggestion :-) For any French speakers a good article is [1] Sadly my French is a little rusty and translation in Google isnt brilliant Francium12 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A different suggestion might be to adequately source articles before you post them to the main space instead of complaining about them being nominated for AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I started Wikipedia people would come along and improve an article, now they try and delete it. Something changed... Francium12 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there were less non-notable articles then. Personally, I am not fond of the "idea man" concept (I have an idea for an article, you do the grunt work since I came up with the idea). I think if you're going to do something on here, at least do it to pass the minimum standards. I have an article that I am writing now. I have enough sources that I think I could successfully get it past notability, but I want it to be stronger before I put it in the mainspace.....and I don't expect other people to make it work for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niteshift, I take the point you are raising but your comments (above) are a bit bitey and hardly encouraging to those comparatively few editors who still bother with content creation. Francium's comment should not have been just dismissed so: an examination of the responses to/outcomes of Chibel's AFD noms as mentioned by Francium - and this one under discussion - shows that they have not exactly been endorsed. And Chibel's singular resort to No, U! AGF! is as telling as it is tiresome. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an analysis of my near 5000 edits shows something other than a work-shy Wikipedian :-) Anyway I think notability has been established now though this is clearly the sort of article which needs an expert rather an a deletionist screaming "no ghits". 12:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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.