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. I would be happy to userfy this if someone is of a mind to re-write the article to address the concerns raised during the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamau Kambon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. This individual is only possibly notable for a single event that was covered by the media, which the policy explicitly states is not enough to warrant an article just for the person. The C-SPAN event would have to be considered on its own, and in the context of the genocide topic it is probably not notable either, though that debate is outside the scope of the AfD candidacy. Trickrick1985 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, Delete as nominated. Outside of some cranky blogs, I can't find anything which establishes this chap's notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This guy sounds like a despicable person and a major dick, but that doesn't make him notable. Other than the incident at Howard Law School which was broadcast on CSPAN, Kambon is non-notable and per WP:NOT#NEWS the event should be covered, not the person. Content from this article could possibly be merged with Hurricane Katrina or related article since Kambon was hardly the only ethnocentric racist who had something to say then. (Kayne West, anyone?) --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguably notable on the basis of his unsuccessful age discrimination lawsuit against St. Augustine's College, role as occasional television commentator and someone well-known in Raleigh's black community, and bookstore owner. The most recent news reference I can find is an obituary that quotes him . -- Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many thousands of bookstore owners, failed lawsuit plantiffs, and millions of well-known local people. None of those things make this person notable. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"well-known in Raleigh's black community" and media reference invalid per WP:LOCALFAME. Trickrick1985 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The statement was notable enough and received abundant coverage. Should the article be moved to Controversy surrounding statement by Kamau Kambon or something else? I should mention that the doctrine of "cover the event, not the person" leads to some very awkward article titles. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if we could establish that the one event was significant in the context of its topic. So the question is, on the topic of genocide throughout history, is this guy's comment on C-SPAN significant? I'd personally say no, but that may be disputable. Trickrick1985 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - mostly per nom, and per Amwestover. [roux » x] 00:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article does not harm the encyclopaedia, it is reasonably well referenced (or should I say it doesn't contain any "fact" tags). I can think of worse articles that we should trying to delete (i.e. ones that are Original Research). A warning for beginners; please don't respond to this by merely copy n pasting a "It doesn't do any harm" link and somehow think that it makes my point any less valid. For a start, that's just an essay and it then goes on to explain that this is only for unreferenced articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In addition to using the "no harm" non-argument, you also say that other articles should be deleted first, which is another non-argument and irrelevant to the discussion. Your only argument is that it's "reasonably well sourced" which does not make a contribution encyclopedic. Notability is paramount, and per the article's content this person is only the least bit notable for one event. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• So you're basically contradicting yourself by arguing WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (Oh noes! I done it!) while at the same time trying to defend by stating it's just an essay. MuZemike (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:NOHARM is very relevant here, please refer to WP:ONLYESSAY about dismissing applicability. WP:NOHARM also, on the contrary, does not say that it's "only for unreferenced articles". It says the issue is at the heart of a larger debate. Trickrick1985 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep. Not notable enough. Based on a Google Scholar search and a few other searches in academic databases, I do not think he meets any of the WP:PROF criteria. Nor does he meet any of the WP:BIO criteria. A Google News search returned one single NRO article, where he is not featured. Just saying outrageous things does not make a person notable. As for possibly being a “despicable person”, that is not a reason for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your googlenews search data is incorrect. When you do the GoogleNews search, the initial results that it gives are only for the newsarticles for the last two weeks (or maybe the last month, I am not exactly sure). The NRO article you mention is produced by such a search. However, to see googlenews hits for older articles one then has to hit "All dates" link on the left tab. Such an "all dates" googlenews search gives an additional 38 hits[1]. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I had to go the news archive to get the same hits. But, indeed, based on this new news search it seems that he has enough media coverage that is “reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject”, thus satisfying the basic criteria of WP:BIO. I am changing my delete recommendation to a keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS does not question WP:V, it is an independent policy. Reliable coverage of a single event does not satisfy WP:NOTE. On top of that, WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria's second point specifically says not to use search engine result counts as your basis for WP:NOTE judgments. Trickrick1985 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, I believe, refers to careless use of search engines. The various search engines (Google, academic catalogs) are only tools that can be used to identify sources, and thus notability based on a careful review of the sources. The search engines are good tools in this respect, but not very good ones if used carelessly (as I almost did, but was corrected by Nsk92).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject is not notable. Individual appears once on C-SPAN and makes outrageous comments. See WP:Coatrack. --George100 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The guy is a bona fide nobody who's had 1.5 minutes of fame for being a loudmouth. Haiduc (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I changed my previous delete recommendation to a keep after a more thorough news search. While he does not qualify specifically under WP:PROF, he has enough independent media coverage to qualify under WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a repository of articles only about nice topics and people. There are many Wikipedia articles about criminals.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia cannot cover ever single person whose name gets mentioned in every single news story or blog. There does not appear to be any lasting significance of this person which would make them notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this is open to debate, and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that WP:BLP1E does not apply here because the coverage is not about one single event, but one single view (a nasty, despicable one), which the author maintains over and over again. If he had expressed that view once, received extensive media coverage, and then never maintained that view again, then WP:BLP1E would certainly apply.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where have you read that he has maintained the view repeatedly? In all the sources I've seen, he's only made the statement once. --George100 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Google News search suggests that he has made his mission in life to argue for the extermination of white people.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've browsed through quite a few of those stories and none of them suggest anything like that. He simply refused to talk to reporters about the incident afterwards. Several of the articles are repeats of the same Hannity & Colmes interviews; they were trying to make a bigger story out of it than it was. --George100 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 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.