Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama

Add links
Source: 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 where a new version of this biography is under review here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll be creating a redirect to Dreams from My Father, but that's a simple editorial decision seperate from the closing of this deletion debate. - brenneman 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abongo Obama

Abongo Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is yet another distant relative of Barack Obama for whom an article has been created. His only notability is that he is (very rarely) mentioned in articles about Obama and has no inherent notability. As has been demonstrated many times on previously deleted articles such as Malia Obama and Family of Barack Obama, notability is not inherited. All of the prior arguments are as applicable here. Obama's coffee mug is often mentioned in profiles of him, but we don't need to start an article called Coffee mug of Barack Obama. Loonymonkey (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A half brother is hardly a "distant" relative. Both Barack and Abongo/Roy are sons of the same man. On what planet does that make them "distantly" related? By the way, Roy was his name much of his life.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one click on that last redlink! Thinboy00 @188, i.e. 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Basic Criteria of WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Here is your secondary source material:
ABONGO (ROY) OBAMA: 'Certainly the older brother'
September 9, 2007
BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Editor
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545461,BSX-News-wotreex09.stng
Most people would consider the Chicago Sun-Times to be "reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Here are two more refernces:
Obama's Church, editorial, Investor's Business Daily January 15, 2008. (Asserts that AO is a "radical muslim", but without attribution.)
Start the scrutiny, editorial by Michael Coren, Toronto Sun, January 26, 2008. Points out that AO is "still" a muslim, but does not make "radical muslim" assertion.
I'd say this citation (along with association to the extremely notable Obama family) is more than sufficient to establish notability. Also, he's getting smeared (or subject to speculation, depending on your point of view) in the right-wing press/blogosphere as being a radical muslim militant, trained in the Soviet Union, etc. I personally highly doubt that any of these charges will hold merit, but references to these speculations are starting to find their way into mainstream news accounts, whether you like it or not. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, it is understandable that you would want to keep it. However, the article you cite is from a series called "Obama Family Tree." It is a profile of Barack Obama, and once again, notability is not inherited. As for the accusations, I'm not sure what you're speaking of, but as of yet no reliable sources have been provided which show that they have "found their way into the mainstream news."--Loonymonkey (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. I've just provided two mainstream references, above. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as to "notability is not inherited", unfortunately he's become notable due to speculations of his radical muslim sympathies/affiliations. Again I don't believe these speculations will ultimatly hold water – but they are definitely being made, are relevant to the campaign (whether true or not), and as just established, are being carried and propogated by mainstream sources. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. (Even if true) some random guy in Kenya embracing Islam isn't notable. The only notability comes from the fact that he is a distant relative of Barack Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any student of history will know that Abongo is very far from being "some random guy." He happens to be a random guy that Barack Obama has traveled on numerous occassions to see, first in D.C., later in Kenya. The purposes of Barack Junior's Kenyan trips were not solely to see Abongo (formerly Roy) but as a close Obama family member he was one of the reasons. He was also at Obama's wedding as his brother (I don't know if he was in the wedding party).--Utahredrock (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that just reinforces the point that whatever slight notability he has is entirely due to his association with Barack Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that this is a keeper. Given the importance of Barack Obama, a separate item for his brother is entirely called for. There's a separate item on Billy Carter, for example, which would not be there but for his brother Jimmy. Billybud989
Not the same thing at all. Billy Carter was frequently in the mainstream news in the 1970s, and a lot is known about him. He was significant enough to enter the pop culture of the time, in comedy routines, etc., and his name was well-known to the man on the street. Yes, if he had not been Jimmy's brother, he wouldn't have been notable - but he made news on his own, including his connection to Libya which was the subject of a Senate investigation. Find independent, non-partisan, mainstream media sites that have written pieces like this about Abongo Obama. The Fornek piece is just an expansion of the family tree they published - it does not demonstrate notability. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; Barack's ethnicity is paritally black; his father is from Kenya-66 years old by 2008; Barack will turn 47 in August 2008; Sarah Barack's grandmother-fathers side is 86 years old. His fathers side is all from Kenya; fully black. Barack's mom is from Europe; totally white. We have enough citations for this. Abongo is perhaps Barack's uncle.--Freewayguy Msg USC 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The father of Abongo (formerly Roy) and his half-brother Obama Jr. (the senator/candidate) is not 66. He died at the age of 46 in 1982. Regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why is he notable? Relative of Barack Obama is not a significant enough reason, particularly not a half-relative, unless the individual has had a close/influencing relationship. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is wildly innapropriate. To off-handedly refer to a half-brother as a "half-relative" dennigrates the close family tie between Barack Jr. and his "half" brother Roy/Abongo. Almost any objective observer who cares about family would agree that a half-sibling is a very close relative indeed.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) PS--Any reader of Dreams from my Father will see that Abongo/Roy indeed has had a close and influencing relationship with Barack Jr. This is why this article must be kept. Not to mention as a counter to the mis-information campaign that Barack himself shares his brother's religion--a horrible political lie.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The above comment is wildly innapropriate... Almost any objective observer who cares about family would agree that a half-sibling is a very close relative indeed."
A half-brother is a half-relative. The term is widely used, included by me (I have two half-sisters), and no slight is intended. What matters here is notability, of which there is none. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Barack would discuss Abongo/Roy at such length in his memoir if he felt his older brother was so non-notable?--Utahredrock (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said "delete", would I? "Appeared in memoir" is not a good enough reason to have a dedicated Wikipedia article, when the subject can be adequately dealt with in Barack Obama, Sr. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is not enough coverage in sources to make him notable per WP:BIO -- Kipof (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Barack Obama; thats his uncle I believe. Like Barack has a step-grandmother, shes like mid-80s; her skin is pitch black like Sarah.--Freewayguy Msg USC 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama Sr. is his father. Barack Obama Jr. is his brother. He may also have an uncle with that name, though I've never seen that in print.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He should be notable because of his actions, not his family member's. Blackngold29 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is very noteable for his life and actions. Please read Dreams from my Father. --Utahredrock (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would you mind adding these noteable actions to the article? If he played a large role in Barack's life, then that belongs in Barack's article. You say below that he is "interesting", however, that is POV and doesn't make him notable. Blackngold29 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've add additional facts along these lines below under a "Note" I added.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Obama's older brother is featured in his book Dreams from my Father. It is true we wouldn't care about him if he weren't the brother of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Yet he is, and as such he is highly noteable and interesting. All efforts to suppress information on this important man are suspect. Whether they initiate from Obama haters (likely) or lovers is irrelevant. Because of his role in Obama's life he is himself highly noteable. Keep this article and expand it.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama haters and lovers? It doesn't matter whether we support or don't support Obama, the fact remains that this article simply doesn't meet our notability criteria and frankly I don't see any good reason to invoke WP:IAR here. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments, and you would probably be well advised to watch for angry mastodons. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I'll refrain if you'll refrain . . . I said that it was/is irrelevant what an editor's view on Obama is--which seems to be the same thing you're saying. Is that incorrect? Let me rephrase: It is is not important what an editors view is on Obama, what is relevant is that this important article be saved. It is always wrong to supress facts. That sort of tactic is commonly used in nations of a totalitarian nature. It horrifies me to see so many wikipedians argue for the supression of or at least limitation of facts. The deletion of this article would be an unnecessary supression of facts on a highly noteable individual.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm no Obama fan, but this is a no-brainer non-notibility case, If Abongo gets appointed secretary of something then he can get his own article along with accusations of cronism  ;) sorry to disappoint your request, Utahrock, but for me Wikipedia rules come before partisan politics Esmehwa (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course wikipedia must be above politics--partisan or not. That is beside the point. Abongo easily passes any objective noteability test. Your tendency to supress facts on Abongo is much more of a concern than whatever your politics might be.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User Yellow Rain is not the issue. The issue is the importance and noteability of this article. Info on his father's article is good, but it's not enough on this brother of Obama. Without facts out that are easier to find, it's far too easy for misguided and conspiracy-minded folks to misrepresent the truth. In this case, the main truth is that Barack Obama is not, nor was he ever a Muslim. He does have muslim ties, including to his brother. This is important and (sorry to say) interesting stuff--especially when dealing with those who may want to mis-use this information.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you personally find it interesting that Obama has "Muslim ties" is not relevant to the notability of Abongo. The fact remains that there isn't anything at all notable about him that doesn't involve his connection to Obama. Once again, notability is not inherited. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is nothing in this article that demonstrates any notability, certainly not independent notability. I agree with Newross that a mention in Barack Obama Sr. of this half-brother whom Obama Jr did not even know until adulthood, and who has not been shown to have some significance beyond a genetic link, is more than enough. This appears to be a coatrack upon which to suggest an Obama connection to Islam for political purposes. See my response above to the incorrect point about Billy Carter for how Carter differs from Abongo. And the comments from Utahredrock here are bordering on incivility - no one is suppressing anything, and a characterization of this delete action as "suppression" is offensive as well as incorrect. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if there is an "Abongo Beer" released commercially, I'll change my vote to "Keep" :-). LotLE×talk 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tvoz, I am sorry you find the fact that you're trying to suppress this article offensive. I certainly agree, it is offensive to suppress good articles. That coatrack argument is an odd one that is illogical. How does having articles about Obama's close family members (step-father, brother, others?) support the false claim that he is not a Christian? Please don't attack me, by calling me uncivil, another user has already pushed me on that score. Strongly arguing a case is not uncivil, nor is stating that an argument is illogical. Calling an argument illogical is far different than calling a person illogical. Personal attacks or revealing personal information on editors is.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just did it again: "Tvoz, I am sorry you find the fact that you're trying to suppress this article offensive." No one is trying to suppress anything, and it is offensive, and bordering on uncivil, to suggest that I am. Do you understand? Editors are evaluating the subject, and the article, and determining if they think it meets notability and other standards. You haven't demonstrated objective notability - just repeated that you think it's interesting. And please don't use this AfD to air your personal grievances against other editors ("another user has already pushed me on that score"). Tvoz/talk 06:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that it's offensive when you call me uncivil. I am very careful to stay on topic and not be personal. It is my opinion that deleting an article is akin to suppressing information. Whether or not that is true, I don't know. Notability is itself highly subjective so it's virtually impossible for me or you or anyone to "objectively" determine it. I am not restating, again, why I think Roy/Abongo is important enough for inclusion. I have no personal grievances against you, you've demonstrated in the past fine editing skills. Your talk page arguments, however, rarely make sense to me--and I don't think it's a personal attack to say that. I should be able to attack your arguments, without attacking you. I always strive for that. I don't know you and have no desire to attack you personally. I don't appreciate being called uncivil, when I am merely aggressively advocating for this page.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Dreams From My Father. There doesn't seem to be a suggestion that this article will ever be more than comments from a single source (one that already has an article). Within a summary of that book, what Obama comments on his half-siblings could be helpful, but Delete as a separate article. LotLE×talk 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if in fact the half-siblings play as important a role in the book as is being alleged - I notice that there is no mention in the Dreams article of them at all. If adding them doesn't give them undue weight in that article, I don't object - but if they play a very small role in the book then they likely have properly not been included in that article. A mention in BO Sr still seems to me the proper place for Abongo, with the evidence in hand. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with a mention in Obama Sr.'s article. LotLE×talk 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people have pointed out that the subject has very little or no "indepenent notability", and I would agree. However, notability is often a property that arises as more than the sum of the individual factors for which a subject is notable. Comparable examples might include Roger Clinton, Jr. and Gustav Schwarzenegger; who both of whom almost certainly would not deserve articles on their own, were it not for their relation to highly famous persons — and yet their status as blood relatives (alone) would not attest to their notablity their notability, but rather a combination of these factors. Yellow Rain (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Barack Obama. Articles on other presidential candidates mention siblings. On the other hand, I'm not sure how Maya Soetoro-Ng can exist if this one doesn't. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge/delete for Maya as well - her independent notability has not been demonstrated either. It is the case, however, that Obama was raised with her, so has had a lifelong relationship with her, unlike Abongo. But that doesn't equate with notability either. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cases for Abongo Obama and Maya Soetoro-Ng are completely unrelated, keep in mind (as a general observation, not a response to Tvoz specifically). Being a sibling of someone notable doesn't automatically make someone notable, but one sibling being non-notable equally doesn't automatically make another sibling non-notable. Any question of Soetoro-Ng's notability can (and will) be handled through appropriate procedures at her article (it survived AfD before, when it had less material). LotLE×talk 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point - I didn't mean to suggest that they should be handled together, just that the existence of one should not be used as a reason to retain the other, and to indicate my thinking on that one as well. But yes, they are separate matters.. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to the Barack Sr. article. Abongo isn't notable in himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The trend on this page seems to be toward delete. If this article is deleted, I predict that somebody will come along shortly and try to recreate it because of the importance of this man in Barack Obama's life. I don't know if the comments in favor of deleting are politically motivated or not.
There is a suggestion that somehow this article on Abongo (formerly Roy) Obama advances the false claim that Obama himself is not Christian. Deleting this article, in my humble--and very civil--opinion, is tantamount to suppressing information on close members of Obama's family.
A half-brother is a close relative. It is true Barack Obama Jr. did not meet him until he was in his twenties, but he went out of his way to meet him, understand him, and get to know him. He traveled to D.C. on one occasion when he was a community organizer in Chicago and likely (speculation) didn't have a lot of money for such weekend trips. Barack Jr. visited him, along with other relatives, in Kenya, and Abonogo was at Barrack's wedding as a close family member. There is one half brother that at least by the mid-1990s Barack Obama still barely knew, but that was not Abongo.
I've never understood why people try to delete articles that seem like such obvious keepers. If it's a coatrack as one user asserts, it's a coatrack (also known in the wiki world as stub) article, that will be worthy of adding to as more sources become available.
Deleting this article is the wrong approach.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what coatrack means. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tvoz, in the link you provided I found a coatrack definition: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"."
This fulfills what I thought you were saying, however, I am clearly not communicating my understanding effectively. You seem to keep saying that by discussing Obama's relatives we just provide a place for the "Obama is not a Christian" crowd to hang their coats. This appears to be faulty thinking to me. I view such articles as beacons of truth on Obama's exteneded family (esp. key players) to hang the truth. (For newer parties to this discussion, I believe that of course Obama is a Christian.)
Your statements often and repeatedly confuse me. It appears you've accused me repeatedly now of intentionally (or not) creating places where anti-Obama activists can air their laundry. My political views are not relevant here, but I do want articles that provde beacons of truth RE candidates so readers can make up their minds and help them break through the clutter of partisan mis-truths. If wiki editors deny the obvious places to do this it seems to me that they are supressing information. Whatever the motives are beyond my concern. My concern is to have a place for well-sourced facts to inform interested parties on facts, not myths. I somehow thought that that is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Maybe not?--Utahredrock (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Of course) This is biased wikipedia, and we don't want any information about the family of the (potential) next president of the United States. His family is irrelevant of course, because they are tied to radical islam. And wikipedia doesn't want anything to get in the way of its beloved Obama. So delete it as you did in the past (yes he was deleted before). Deleting relevant knowledge. The family of the President of the United States is relevant. Wiki deletes it anyway. That is the way of Goebbels. That is the way of the liberally left-biased Wikipedia. But we already know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and revisit next January. Very little of what is written about him in reliable sources would have been written but for his relationship with Barack. This means most of what is written about him is "inherited" and wikinotability is generally not inherited. On the other hand, he is getting some press in his own right, albeit very little so far. It's also quite likely that like Billy Carter before him, this person will become a public figure in his own right. I don't see a lot of harm to keeping this article, but not deleting it may set bad precedent for future inherited-notability cases where it is not likely that the subject's public-figure status is likely to go up in the near future. If the closing admin does not delete the article, please point out that at least one neutral editor would have voted "delete/merge" had this person's public-figure status not been ascending. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curious about what press you see him as getting now in his own right - anything that passes WP:RS? I haven't seen any, nor is there any in the article. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't remember, but I do remember it was marginal at best. Because this person's "star is rising" I'm trying to give the article every benefit of the doubt. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's notable now,[1] and is only going to get more notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "source" you cite is not reliable in any way. S. Dean Jameson 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - a lot of arguments are misplaced. Coatracking, lack of sourcing, poor quality, etc., can all be fixed if the article has some encyclopedic content and it's notable / verifiable. People misunderstand the phrase "notability is not inherited" - it often is in the real world. The phrase means that we as Wikipedians don't assume notability from a family relationship. However, if events out in the real world cause someone to become notable out of a family tie we do not close our eyes to that (e.g. Billy Carter, Nicole Ritchie, Raul Castro, Jenna Bush, and others who would not have become notable but for their relatives). At this point, the bottom line is that there is very little coverage of this person in reliable 3rd party sources - Obama's own memoir isn't exactly 3rd party, the conservative hit pieces aren't reliable, and the "fact check" style inquiries aren't all that relevant. So on standard notability grounds this person may not yet meet the test of notability. Whether he does later remains to be seen.Wikidemo (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree with that - see my comment above about Billy Carter. But the bottom line as you describe it is exactly the point here - there has been no independent notability demonstrated from reliable sources, which is what almost all of the folks here who have spoken in favor of deletion of this article have said. Tvoz/talk 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Dreams from my Father independent? It's not a book by Abongo, it's by Barack and published by a reputable publisher. Of course there are others too, the Sun Times, etc. If Malik is Abongo, as I suspect, there are even more independent sources.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim to be notable. Fails WP:BIO --T-rex 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not inherited, having an accounting degree not notable, having your name on a book is notable if the book is about you not just one paragraph. -AMAPO (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

Check out this article http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/from-the-fact-c.html ABC is reputable, not sure where an ABC blog ranks. I had never heard of Malik. Not sure if this mostly pro-delete crowd is much concerned, but it seemed related enough to this discussion to mention. --Utahredrock (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6333496 makes Malik and Abongo sound like they must be the same man. It also says Obama was 43 in the mid 1980s . . . . so much for the mainstream media getting this stuff right, but it was written even before Barak was a U.S. senator.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of news articles in the past 1-2 weeks prominently mentioned Malik Obama. As mentioned above, it seems it must be Abongo/Roy. If pro-deletion wikipediaites succeed in removing this article we may never know how all of these people fit together (though I am sure some enterprising journalist will put the pieces together). We all know the mainstream media wastes time on non-noteable people, I am just not convinced either Abongo or Malik fit that category.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like at least one other person is as concerned about this deletion movement as I am. And this is from a previous go around where Roy's article was successfully deleted.

See: http://www.songwave.com/articles/abongo-obama.htm

I don't know that I agree with all that that author says, but I do agree that it raises interesting questions about what is kept and what is deleted on Wikipedia. This is especially odd since I don't see that there is anything worth covering up here.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen references that this has been debated before. Is this true? If so, how many times? Where are those debate records? Was it done under the name Roy Obama?--Utahredrock (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedian directed me to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24 --Utahredrock (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to know if this article has been deleted more than once prior to this early July 2008 discussion.

  • Note: The current AfD page does not reference the Feb. 24, 2008 deletion.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author James B. Stewart wrote a brilliant book on the Clintons called Blood Sport.

In it he is highly critical of Hillary Clinton for being the leading advocate of sweeping Whitewater under the rug. As we all know, that was a strategic blunder that nearly cost Bill Clinton the presidency.

It is wrong to cover things up and the cover-ups are almost always worse than the facts.

Abongo Obama is a minor character in the news this year. But he is in the news (especially if Malik and Abongo are one in the same).

Notability is subjective but it would be easy to find countless numbers of less notable people with articles on Wikipedia.

If you’ve voted to delete, please reconsider. The truth usually comes out in the end and hiding it rarely helps.

Barack Jr. has an important relationship with his brother, however limited it might be.

Political extremists and conspiracy minded folks are using Abongo and others to twist the facts about Barack Obama. If the facts are easier to find, they will be harder to twist.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the topic of notability--I agree that there has to be a standard on what to include and what to leave out on Wikipedia. My dog for example, as much as I love him, does not deserve a Wikipedia article. The primary argument here, and on any deletion argument I've seen, revolves around notability. Whether or not something is notable is highly subjective. In addition, using that as the primary reason for deletion is a red herring.

Here is the definition of red herring as found at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned.

If you have voted for delete, please re-read the actual article which I updated this morning. Abongo is an important man in the life of Barack Obama. Barack makes this clear in his memoir. That alone makes him worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

I don't know that notability is actually irrelevant, but it is at best suspect as the primary reason for deletion.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Wikipedia's own notability test A reading of Wikipedia:Notability makes this article a no-brainer for keeping. Barack wrote extensively on his brother in his memoir. Numerous other sources have written about him, though not at as much length as Barack himself. While Dreams from my Father could be called an autobiography, it is Barack's not Obama/Roy's autobiography. If it were the latter it looks like it might fail the Wikipolicy on acceptable sources.

The overwhelming deletion movement on this page is very confusing.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ABC News (see here) says that Roy Obama of Dreams of My Father and Malik Obama are identical.

In Obama's book Dreams of My Father, interestingly enough, he writes about meeting Malik as an adult: “I checked into the cheapest room I could find and waited. At nine, I heard a knock. When I opened the door, I found a big man standing there with his hands in his pockets, an even-toothed grin breaking across his ebony face. ‘Hey, brother,’ he said. ‘How’s life?’ In the pictures I had of Roy, he was slender[...].----JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This evaluation should start over

Since the person B's family knows as Abongo or Roy is known to be the "Malik" Obama of any number of prestigious news reports, eg

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from Utahredrock: Even I cannot believe I have anything else to say about saving this article, but I do.

I’ve tried to keep the tone civil and on target. I see a difference between arguing passionately for something I believe in and attacking those that disagree. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has weighed in on the deletion side of this debate.

Yet my impassioned language has raised the ire of some and I've dealt with some of the most personal attacks since I started contributing.

One user who voted delete, LotLE, on a related topic did research on me and inserted my real name into that discussion. I thought that that was unacceptable, and at least one other Wikipedian agreed, though LotLE never apologized.

Another user, Tvoz, defended LotLE by pointing out that LotLE just used my first name (a common one she said) and a "random" initial. Yet that random initial is the first letter of my last name.

S. Dean Jameson seemed fed up with me. Who can blame him? Then when I thought I was agreeing with him he told me to “just stop” and pointed out that I wasn’t being persecuted, people just disagreed with me.

Of course he is right, nobody has persecuted me here. But personal information has been revealed. No I haven't been persecuted, but I still feel burnt.

My opinion that deletion has the same effect as suppression drew attack. They're not the same, but the result is similar. If it's deleted, it's also supressed--at least in wiki-land.

To whatever individual or group that makes the final decision on this article be aware that if you delete this, it will almost certainly come up again. Abongo Obama is too prominent based on his own brother’s book and his own brother’s prominence. Vote how you will. (I won’t create it--and didn't create this one--I don’t have the time or energy.)

Abongo’s article was already deleted at least once.

Why it does a service to sweep this article out of existence is beyond me. Tvoz fears that it will be used as a coatrack for Obama haters. With editors like Tvoz on the job, I am sure all mistruths will be promptly removed as they should be.

I asked rhetorically if there was a conspiracy among the deletionists. I don’t believe there is an actual organized group, but I do believe there is a misguided notion that by deleting this article we are doing the right thing. When I asked that question before S. Dean Jameson deleted my comment. S. Dean claimed it was a personal insult to all those that voted to delete. I did not mean it that way.

I do mean for everyone who’s weighed in, and for those who will decide this go around, to seriously consider keeping this article and making Wikipedia a beacon of knowledge and truth—to the best of all of our abilities. --Utahredrock (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (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/Abongo_Obama&oldid=1219326584"