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 no consensus. Only two !votes for delete in all of this text proves that this discussion is happening in the wrong venue: this is not what AfD is for. Additionally, it is clear that no consensus is going to come from this debate. And the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. All in all, this AfD is over. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

At article's present length, it is exactly redundant with coverage at Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator (Me!) believes rationale above no longer applies, due expansion in bio (as of Nov. 3rd) primarily concerning Aunt Zeituni's immigration controversy. (My !vote at current bottom of page.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is moved here from article's talkpage:

---

Merge This a WP:CFORK of Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. VG ☎ 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is an unnecessary article that should be redirected to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. There is no independent notability and this matter is handled there. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No point in duplication. This person is also only notable for being a family member - so she belongs on a family article (split only if that article gets overlong). Agree with merge/redirect.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first post here was made 19:25, and a non-admin user claims "consensus" at 21:01 [1], is this really ridiculous on it's face like it seems? This has to be one of the most un-wiki things I've seen. Obviously there is no consensus to do this nor can it be after on hour. What's next? First poster declares consensus disruptively after 3 minutes based on his own opinion? Oppose any such merge oppose disruptive closing of discussion after 1 hour. We have processes like Afd (mandatory run for 5 days) for a reason so everyone can have a voice, so we can have discussion. There is no discussion and zero reasoning and arguments above. Of course how could there be in just a short time. I ask everyone to follow wikipedia processes on deletion, discussion and consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some comment to make on the merits of why there should be a separate article on this individual? What I see is no independent notability, and to the extent she is known, it is for one thing only - both of which would suggest that the redirect makes sense. So if you think this article should stand, could you share why? Also, don't you think you a should have reinstated the merge tag when you reinstated the page? Tvoz/talk 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(please don't modify your comment like that, it's not what I replied to ,ec) Yes, first of all discussion should run it's course with multiple people having the opportunity to comment, so that's a procedural reason for the time being. However also there is the reason that I see no evidence that this person would be non-notable. In fact a simple search of reliable sources on Google News shows that she was notable enough for around 2200 articles at the moment. These are only English language sources and only those tracked by the service. I can confirm that she received international coverage as well outside of the US. It is also probable that the level of notability will increase rather than decrease with time for the moment at least. All these facts lead to the conclusion that this person is far more notable than a good percentage of existing articles, and far more notable than the standards we use for inclusion. Also I fail to see what is the 'one thing' that she is known for? Is it being written about in "Dreams From My Father", is it moving to the US, is it qualifying in an unprecedented manner for federal tax dollars in federal housing, is it contributing to the presidential campaign as a non-citizen? Is it influencing a presidential campaign in the last days? Which would be the one thing, rather it seems that the she is known internationally for many things. There are many Obama relatives who are never written about in the press, because they are not notable for doing anything. Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status that mysteriously came out a handful of days before the presidential election, likely in order to try to embarrass the candidate. There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election, and if it does it would belong at most as a small note in the article about the election. That doesn't merit a biography. Nor does being a minor character in his memoir. As for your prediction that the coverage will increase - if that happens, an article can always be created. We are not the news - there will be plenty of time in the future to determine if she has become notable enough to warrant an article. Tvoz/talk 08:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status" False. The media reported it even before the AP broke the illegal immigration story. Read the first articles they have nothing about illegal immigration. "There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election" did you actually check the articles? If you do some simple searches I'm sure you can find all the articles discussing how the story a few days before election is significant. We have multiple press releases from the Obama campaign. If it has no significance how do you explain the press releases from a presidential campaign? Hobartimus (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it has no significance how do you explain also the following "Onyango's case resulted in an special nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations to be approved at the level of ICE regional directors before the U.S presidential election.[6]" Hobartimus (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it also depends about how you define "one story" or one thing. Obama is only notable for his "political activities" but I think it's a stretch to define "one story" this way that it includes so many things and events. I mean you must admit that there is multiple things here, the immigration status, the special nationwide order to halt all deportations, there is the public housing, there is the campaign contributions, the return of those contributions, being featured in the best selling book by Obama, the coverage itself, possible effect on the election (I know you doubt it, but I think possible is a word that can be agreed on, also effect does not mean it turns it but that it moves some votes) . Hobartimus (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←No, the comparison to Obama is not at all correct. And I disagree with your assertion that these are unrelated stories. All of the stories about Zeituni come back to the immigration status story - contributions and their return are only an issue if she doesn't have a green card, the article itself says that the deportation approval directive came out of this story, we do not write articles about every person in his or any book, and I do not see anything regarding a "public housing" issue - in fact the articles I read say there is no issue and you should be careful of BLP violations on this. You may be hoping this affects the election outcome, but there's no reporting that it is having such an effect, and we do not write about "possible" effects - we wait, because there is no emergency, until there actually is an effect that is notable. You seem to be in a big rush and haven't explained why. In any case, the suggestion was to merge with the already existing section in the Family article, so anything of any real notability can be put into that section. You haven't demonstrated a need for a standalone article. Let's see what other editors think - you've made your point. Tvoz/talk

---

 ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FromWP:NOTABILITY

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who makes the claim that "Zeituni Onyango" did NOT receive "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"? Anyone who makes that statement in light of the evidence and challenge the inclusion as a stand-alone article. I think it's high time we base the discussion on Wikipedia's rules. Search of reliable sources shows not only significant, but large amounts of coverage and as such the article is clearly notable as a stand alone article. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge to family article. The claim that "[t]his person is also only notable for being a family member" [Scott, above] is misleading - Hobartimus is correct that the subject easily passes the WP:GNG and as such this Afd should never have been started, and will only lead to acrimony. A stand-alone article on Onyango would necessarily be a WP:COATRACK given current sources, as I have not yet seen significant coverage of Onyango's life per se. It is entirely possible that such sources will emerge in the near future. Until then, the material is better presented in an article about Obama first and foremost, and that article is Family of Barack Obama. the skomorokh 12:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The article now contains far too much relevant, reliably sourced content to merit a merge. Could easily make a Good Article as a standalone. the skomorokh 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No point in duplication. This person is also only notable for being a family member - so she belongs on a family article (split only if that article gets overlong). Agree with merge/redirect--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Do you have any evidence for the claim that she is "only notable for being a family member"? I see many one sentence entries in the Family of Barack Obama, from people who are truly "only notable for being a family member". Hobartimus (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. Comment (see further below for my !vote after the rewrite) User:Hobartimus just recreated this WP:CFORK against consensus. The article had already been merged (by copying it) to Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango per WP:BIO1E. This is the version I've merged, and it is practically identical to the original at the time of the merge. Other users worked on the section since then, and removed some material. User:Hobartimus disagrees with their changes, but a WP:CFORK is not the Wikipedia way to address it. VG ☎ 14:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary keep - with the US Presidential election only two days away, it's virtually impossible to fairly consider the merits of this article without getting caught up in political considerations. As such, I think the most reasonable approach is to keep the article until after the election, when we will be able to objectively assess its notability. (At that point, I would probably argue for a merge, due to WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues.) Terraxos (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that the current version of the article [2] is significantly different now, changing the redundant situation described at nomination of this Afd. Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect per the discussion above. Duplicate information is already covered elsewhere, so we need to redirect to point people to the right spot. If a case can be made for independent notability, the article should be kept. Either way, there is no valid case for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (see below for new comment)[reply]

• Restore redirect per VasileGaburici not more notable than other obama relatives to justify own article inspite of recent media coverage Thisglad (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable in light of media coverage. However, this whole Afd has to be viewed in light of the election in a few days time. Francium12 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOT#NEWS. If this woman weren't an obscure relative of the next President of the United States the Democratic candidate for President, would this have been reported on? No. She is no more independently notable for having been in a flurry of news stories than she was before the flurry. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP, this otherwise obscure person does not need a biography article. -Nard 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge She has gotten only 2 days worth coverage and not even headlines but a secondary story. She is only being not because of her connect to the Obama family. Mean his Granny Obama has gotten more media coverage then his Auntie Zeituni and more details about his sister Auma are given in Dreams from my Father then Auntie Zeituni and yet both those example don't have their own article. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Francium12. I also suggest delaying any action until after the US election has been sorted out. If Obama does win there is little doubt that every family meber will be heaped with attention and with modern gossipers and technology there is little doubt more is forthcoming. Google News pops an impressive 2600+ stories as of this writing and little doubt this will be leveraged in the election by Obama's opposition. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're suggesting keep the article because there might be more details? WP:CRYSTAL. I have strong doubt that anything else will come out about this, unless Obama once inaugurated takes some action on her behalf. Since any such action could happen at a minimum almost three months from now, keeping an article in the expectation that something might happen then is ludicrous. There needs to be a demonstration now that the article passes WP:BIO and, since this person's news coverage is as the result of a single event, she fails WP:BIO1E. There are millions of alleged illegal aliens in the country right now. Would this story have ever been written if she weren't related to Obama, who's met her what, three times in the past three decades or something? Of course not, and since notability is not inherited here's no excuse for keeping this as a separate article. It's not like, should she suddenly become known for something other than this one event, the redirect can't be undone and the article restored. There's no reason to keep this around to as there is nothing that can't be housed completely in the main article on Obama's family. Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• without intending any offense, those suggesting that the deletion be postponed until the election is over are being ridiculous, and other than the coverage of her immigration status only because she is Senator Obama's relative, there isn't any link directly to the U.S election, and the McCain campaign refused to comment, as well as Obama himself denying any link to her immigration status. The article should be restored to the redirect per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS Thisglad (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Without getting into a big thing here ... with over 2000 news stories there does seem to be plenty to warrant a stubby article if nothing else right now. What I'm suggesting is that within a few days we'll have an even better perspective on 1. Does this person have an impact on the US election (similar to Joe the plumber) and 2. If Obama is elected then all relatives of a sitting President are undoubtedly going to get more media attention. We don't need to be in a rush to delete this article which has sources - with plenty more available and certainly seems notable. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that there are 2000 unique news stories, which makes your claim somewhat deceptive, rather it is a couple of unique press releases from the associated press repeated on several thousand websites that carry those releases. Perhaps in the future if this individual becomes more notable she would deserving of a biographical article on wikipedia. Thisglad (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can look to see that there is much more than "a couple of unique press releases" simply repeated. In the latest search that number has creeped up to 2,732 articles including quite a few other countries. Multiple independent sources are quite evident at this point. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango where it already is. Per WP:RECENT,WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, for starters. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure what the alleged one event would be, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject demonstrate notability. From coverage in Obama's memoirs to today she has been in reliable sources for quite some time. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that no one sought to add her to the encyclopedia before her immigration status was reported is proof that she is only really notable for one event, the article is not a biography that asserts any notability other than her being related to Obama. Thisglad (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that's a leap of bad faith that the article was created solely to discredit Obama. Whether or not this article exists there is little doubt information about this latest episode in this saga of an election will be on Wikipedia - likely in several appropriate articles. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't claim that's why it was created, but it's has been suggested by the media that the timing of the release to the election was not coincidental, however that doesn't make Zeituni Onyango deserving of a biography on wikipedia just because she is related to Obama Thisglad (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies.
• That media sources have questioned the timing would be relevant material to also add to the article. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now. This is precisely the sort of thing where having the AfD now just isn't that productive. We should wait until after the election to figure out whether or not we should have an article on her that is separate. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Using the reasoning you are advocating, we should undelete all the non notable biographies previously deleted, because they might gain more notability in the future Thisglad (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a complete strawman. The point is that this is about a still ongoing news issue that is gaining international attention. It makes sense to wait until the dust has settled after the election to make a decision. That's distinct from some a not notable article where absolutely nothing is happening in respect to that article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge It's worth noting that this AfD will close after the 4th, when no one will care about this person. Redirect per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS. Protonk (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a clear winner in the election. It has been contentious the last two rounds. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if we repeat the florida mess, no one will give a second thought to Ashely Todd or this woman. Vagaries of the news cycle, I'm afraid. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly - but that conclusion would seem WP:Crystal. This does seem to one of the more notable asylum cases and this case may also bring profound attention to asylum and immigration issues including how she was accepted for public assistance. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one of my pet peeves. Making guesses on future events in article spaces is crystal balling. Speculating on a subject absent sourcing is original research--in article space. Here at the AfD it is just having a discussion. We can have a discussion that my speculation on the subject may be unfounded or innacurate, but it isn't "WP:CRYSTAL" :) As for the future debate over asylum seekers because of the incident, maybe. I can say I'm surprised at the media sucking at the figurative teat of Joe the Plumber for so long. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. This election is worldwide news and every aspect of it is exponentially dissected and magnified. That asylum cases were put on extra review until after the election because of this case is certainly an indication it's beyond the ordinary. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is also the argument that the asylum case review and the leak to the press of the outcome were the same sort of actions as the passport breach from earlier this year. Honestly, my main point is this: we have a responsibility to this woman to be able to write a biographical article if we are to keep it. If all we can get in terms of coverage of the subject is that she is an illegal immigrant and related to Obama, then we can't build a biographical article and the information belongs someplace else. Preferably, we should just be summarizing other biographical sources, but a detailed sketch in a reliable source would probably be enough, assuming that it presented significant coverage (more than the Boston Globe story that broke this, IMO). If we can't write that article given the sourcing, we should merge the content elsewhere. If we can, we should keep this. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I hear what your saying and I think we can. Now that her nephew is argubly the most powerful man in the world there likely will be more stories coming. -- Banjeboi 11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Benjiboi and Francium12. Like Tito the Builder, this individual is the subject of substantial media attention; enough to warrent an article of its own. Also similiarly, the recent creation of the article is not a reason for deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Obvious notability. In the annals of history it is often just one event in a person's life that makes them especially notable for posterity. The suspiciously timed "exposure" of this woman's immigration status alone merits her role in both the current events of our time, as well as Amerian presidential and electoral history. Please resist the urge to merge all Obama family articles into the Obama family article . . . a fine enough piece that should link to the separate articles of the more notable family members. Here's to inclusionism!--Utahredrock (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we may be overstating the importance just a skosh. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with the Family of Barack Obama article as it seems that this is just another case of WP:ONEEVENT. Is this Allison Stokke case all over again? PS: There are also major BLP issues here because the Associated Press might've violated federal privacy law by reporting on this, according to the Washington Post today. [3]--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (changed my decision to a proposed move, see below)[reply]

• Comment Please at least name what this supposed "one event" would be if you use it as an argument. What is the "event" here?

Hobartimus (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The 'One event' is the report of her living without a green card or citizenship in the United States, other than that she was non notable as far as biographical information or notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia Thisglad (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with the "family" article, but consider recreating later if that better organizes content. Weak keep for now. First, notability is obvious (3,000 or so news articles) but for questions of "not news", "not inherited", recentivism, and BLP. Having a separate article would have to pass all those hurdles. I note of the +/- 3,000 news articles, the very first reported by google is October 29, 2008, four days ago. Every single article is about the nexus of: (1) her being an illegal alien plus (2) her being a relative of Barack Obama. Even if we accept that circumstances have made her a notable person, I do not think it is possible at this time to create a neutral, BLP-honoring, informative article about her as a human being. I do not think a terribly significant or helpful encyclopedic article can be created about her from the relevant sources. There is certainly some information that could be included in the campaign article(s) and the "family" article, just nothing about her apart from those issues. Moreover, all the material here is a duplicate of the "Family" article. That does not weigh one way or another - either it could be here in its own article or it could be merged. But the fact that there's only 2-4 paragraphs of useful info on her means she will fit neatly into the family article as a matter of organization. If Obama should be elected this is likely to be an ongoing issue, and even if he is not it could be.... so why not revisit this in a few weeks or months, and consider the question then. If her immigration status and her life becomes an ongoing saga that captures the public interest, write about her at that time. If this is just a flash in the pan, no point having an article. Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been substantially rewritten since it was nominated, and in my opinion the article as rewritten satisfies the BLP concerns in all ways except making public the life of a quiet private citizen - every newspaper in the country is doing so too, but we have to decide whether Wikipedia should participate in that. At any rate, I think the article is neutral, fair, and well sourced at this point, even if what is happening to her is not necessarily going to be fair or neutral. In the coming days and weeks, as a relative of the President who is caught up in the immigration process, it is very likely that she will continue to be in the news and her case will be an ongoing matter of public interest until it is resolved. We don't know that yet, but it would be undue effort to go through the trouble to merge now, only to recreate the article later. Ideally we should just let this article sit until then, and reconsider at that time whether her notability independent of the President-elect and his campaign is proven or not. Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(note: the below exchange occurred before I changed my !vote)

• Comment Wikidemon failed to mention above that he deleted large amounts of content from an article under Afd, in a way that would change the effect of all "merge" votes. He did this minutes after posting his above vote. He first voted to merge the content then he deleted large parts of the content he just voted to merge a few minutes ago. You can see the content of the article, at the time he voted to merge [4]. Note that the article at that time had 19 sources. He then proceeded to delete about 3000 bytes worth of content about 30% of the article without discussing it on the talk page first [5]. He did this in an article flagged for Afd and flagged for rescue meaning users should expand the article to show notability of the topic. After Wikidemon's deletions the article just has 11 sources down from 19. All participants of the Afd should be aware of this undiscussed massive deletion of sourced content it is at the level of blanking with 30% of the article. Wikidemon's choice to do this blanking without noting it here to participants of the Afd is very concerning. If only two people like him show up that would leave us with only 10% of the original article and would make the Afd process as a whole meaningless. Hobartimus (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The borderline personal attack is out of line. I did not mention deleting the material because I had not done so at the time I posted my response. The deletion does not affect my response one way or another. The material is inappropriate and should not be in an article about a living person who is not a public figure - merged or not, period. It is disputed information that I and others had contested before - this should not be re-inserted without consensus in any event. Onyango's sudden notoriety is a minor election year ploy to get at Barack Obama. The election is in two days now, and this AfD is scheduled to go one day beyond that. Time does not stop for AfDs. Being under AfD does not trump our encyclopedic standards to keep out material that is unencyclopedic, POV, and in part a BLP violation. Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" Onyango's sudden notoriety is a minor election year ploy to get at Barack Obama." do you accuse the Associated Press LA times The New York Times and other renowned news organizations some of them who endorsed Obama that they reported on the story (provided publicity, coverage to it) to "get at" Obama? Along them and the 3000 articles in gnews only, the story was reported world-wide including large coverage in the UK and several other countries. Did all these news organizations (all of the information came from them, nothing was unsourced) want to "get at" Obama? Or it's not about Obama but doing their job? If there is a story, they report on it that's what they do, is it not? (as a side note, content that was deleted by you included deleting The New York Times as a reference and all content that was sourced to it. The New York Times hardly wants to disparage or "get at" Obama as they endorsed him for president) Hobartimus (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not accuse these papers. They report political theatrics when it occurs, and as warranted the underlying circumstances after partisan accusations are made. They, like all papers, are also eager to print illegally leaked information if it is a good scoop. None of that means it is their ploy, they just report on it. The claim itself is poorly sourced - an anonymous government official tells the Associated Press X, and other papers cannot confirm it, so they simply relay that the AP reported X. None of that makes X reliably sourced - we have sources only for the fact that AP reported that anonymous sources said X. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear cut case of WP:INHERITED --T-rex 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me to be a clear cut case of WP:GNG - or should we delete the Michelle Obama article too, as she would not be notable had it not been for her relationship to Obama either? the skomorokh 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually she is notable enough for inclusion into wikipedia independent of her relation to Barack Obama, maybe not a few years ago, but you can even compare Michelle Obamas article to this one up for deletion, other than the report of her living without a green card there was 0 notability or news coverage of Zeituni Onyango just a week ago Thisglad (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Family of Barack Obama per WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM. Khoikhoi 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're waaay past BLP1E with now 3000 news articles. Also she stated in a recent interview she would talk with reporters after the election. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as to the Michelle Obama comparisson, when Auntie Zeituni gives a speech at the DNC and a zillion and one major media interviews, then that standard can apply.
  • The point is that whether or not a subject meets the notability requirements is independent of whether or not they got to be famous through connection to another subject. Onyango is notable because she has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, a fact your comment does not address. Sincerely, the skomorokh 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator (Me!) believes rationale above no longer applies, due expansion in bio (as of Nov. 3rd) primarily concerning Aunt Zeituni's immigration controversy.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Family of Barack Obama. This is nothing more than a short-term news story about a non-notable person, and it will be completely irrelevant on November 5. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article doesn't make Zeituni Onyango a notable person. My original opinion stands. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Closing admin please note that at Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango a merge template has been replaced pointing here to encourage a merge discussion. I personally find this a bit pointy but think it may account for some of the comments above. -- Banjeboi 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to family of, or campaign 2008. This person should not have a bio article, since she's not notable. My second choice would be delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By virtue of her becoming a person of public interest due to her "outing" by persons as yet unknown, Zeituni Onyango certainly merits a page.Mauidude (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved from article talkpage). -- Banjeboi 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Family of Barack Obama. This information is obviously well-sourced and needs a place, but I don't think she's done enough to be notable independently, hence the call to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename or merge and redirect. The article has expanded quite a bit since the previous merge. I'd be inclined to rename it Zeituni Onyango immigration controversy or something similar, in light of WP:BIO1E. Her mention in Obama's book is farily trivial. The bulk of this article is about her immigration case, including the investigation of the leak ("Legality regarding release of information" section), which just started, so including all this in Family of Barack Obama would be a bit odd. I don't like to speculate, but since Obama won the election, I think we haven't heard the last word in the investigation, so covering the event in a separate article is not outlandish. Compare with Ashley Todd mugging hoax. VG ☎ 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i was asked to take a second look by benji. I've done so. It remains a very, very poor article. This woman remains a minor figure of passing relevance who's life history, running to over 50 lines (i just eyeballed it and am being conservative, it could be more) doest not belong here. The information should be distilled to about 200 words tops and then merged with either the obama family story or whatever the link is for the 2008 US presidential election.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed move to a new title reflecting the event for which Onyango was notable--her immigration status controversy. As WP:BLP1E suggests: "Cover the event, not the person." Is she notable for her work with East African Breweries also? Then prove it. Otherwise, the only coverage she has beyond the immigration is very scant at best.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's misapplying BLP, her case is about her and she was the focus of several thousand news articles not her asylum case. That could change bu the article is actually more in the spirit of humanity showing who she is and how her case has evolved. Also she has stated she will talk after the elections so there's little doubt more biographical information will come. I didn't, for instance, add that she was known to be quite a dancer although that sort of fluff could be helpful too. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too was asked to revisit this page. I don't know what standard someone could use to call this a bad article. It is well sourced and at least reasonably well written. It is noteworthy--the aunt of our President-elect is caught up in the ridiculous immigration laws or lack thereof of the U.S. This is an important article. Cheers to those who have worked on it. Let's not try to merge it with some master Obama family article. That very un-Wiki like movement represents an odd urge among some editors. If the Obama family article survives it would be best to link to the stand alone articles like this one.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I had vacillated in my earlier comment between "keep" and "merge". The "merge" seems consistent with the handling of some other Obama relatives (but that handling was not necessarily my first preference, just consensus I recognized). However, this article has been rewritten, strengthened, expanded, and made more encyclopedic. As currently written, I think it is a clear "keep", possibly even a "strong keep". Onyango has received enough press to become independently notable, notwithstanding the fact this press was originally motivated by a familiar connection... it makes it to the "Billy Carter Rule" :-). LotLE×talk 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "press coverage"?? How can you compare this poor old woman to Billy Carter? She gives no interviews, stays away from the press (indeed I believe they have been unable to photograph her) and is famous ONLY because it is a curious anomaly the President-elect has an illegal alien aunt! The press can write ad nauseum about her, digging up whatever details they can on this poor woman and the steps the government has taken to avoid any bias in the case but that DOES NOT make her worthy of either inclusion nor does it pass WP:BLP. What has she personally done to warrant inclusion? -Nard 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please more looking into the issue before comment ("indeed I believe they have been unable to photograph her") It took me literaly 10 seconds to find an article with a picture (at the very top on Google News) [6] it's from the BBC. Hobartimus (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her asylum case is quickly becoming one of the most well-known. With her nephew now the next president of the US the attention will only increase. -- Banjeboi 11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is illustrated by press coverage; too much content to merge. Everyking (talk) 08:46, 6 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.