Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Guy Goma

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 of the debate was Keep. No point having an ugly great AFD tag on this article any longer (see WP:SNOW). kingboyk 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Guy Goma

Credit to Mr Goma for making the best of a bad situation he found himself in, but I don't think it makes him notable enough for an entry here - certainly not according to WP:BIO. In a few days time he will be (probably gratefully) extremely anonymous again. The error the BBC made might deserve a sentence in their article, but I'm not even sure about that. Also, the transcript is probably copyrighted. Worldtraveller 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This was a notable event that was reported by news media worldwide, I think it deserves to have a page separate from the BBC's article. Amazinglarry 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user's 33rd edit. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• I just about took this for a DYK, in fact I still might if this gets speedy kept! It's funny, it's topical, it's well sourced and well written. The transcript may or may not be copyrighted though. Keep ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's worthy for DYK btw Lar, because this case has been widely reported so most people would indeed know!. --kingboyk 13:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not in the US, at least... ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: He deserves to have a wikipedia article much more than Dubya. barfly 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user's 96th edit. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable and verifiable, everything is referenced. I don't think the transcript is appropriate, however. -- MisterHand 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable biography, verifiable. --Terence Ong 04:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If he is notable, it's for this event only. Nothing else at all is even said about him other than that he comes from the Congo, so the article is much more about the event than the person. It would be more appropriately titled BBC wrong interviewee event, 8 May 2006, which in my opinion would be much more obviously too trivial for an article. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there are far more trivial events that are kept on Wikipedia. Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousincreep (talk • contribs)
  • This user's 10th edit. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: we should remember our users, rather than make a judgement of triviality. If this is something they are likely to search for, then we should have it there for them to find. Jackyan 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user's 5th edit. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It's a no brainer, psh.71.131.16.163 07:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user's 1st edit. Worldtraveller 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I have my doubts that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia, and perhaps this was better off on Wikinews only, but then again this is a news event that was reported by many news agencies worlwide. --Tim 10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This has had enormous news coverage in the UK and worldwide. I'm really puzzled by the assertion that it might not even merit a mention in the BBC's article - "major news network interviews the wrong guy entirely live on air" isn't a story that is going to be forgotten, in my view. Whilst it probably would be more appropriate to put it at BBC News 24 wrong interviewee event or some such, his name has been widely reported and it's likely people looking for the article will search for it - I did. So in conclusion, I say more Guy Goma, less cowbell. Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No doubt Mr Goma will fade from public view in the next few weeks but the incident, and what happened immediately afterwards will cotinue to resonate. I've read a number of articles in newpsapers/websites this week which have detailed people who had a brush with fame and have faded away, no doubt Mr Goma will be resurrected some time in the future. Yorkshiresky 10:46 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user's 32nd edit. Worldtraveller 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This unusual and well documented incident has become a part of history and this man will likely remain in the memory of BBC viewers for a long time to come. Badagnani 11:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on how he his notable? As it is, the article actually says nothing at all about him, other than that he comes from the Congo. This seems to imply he's not notable, except in the context of this incident, which would imply that he, himself, does not warrant an article. Worldtraveller 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is it really necessary to add the afdanons template to this afd, and then "mark" every editor with only a few edits behind them? That isn't usual practice, and this afd discussion doesn't seem any different than normal (I don't see it flooded with anon users who have come from a user board). The votes are mature and well-worded on both sides. -- MisterHand 12:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just concerned at the large number of votes from people with very few other edits - as of now 1/3 of the people who've posted here have less than 100 votes, which seems very high. Are you sure noting which voters have few edits is not normal practice? I've seen it done many times before. Worldtraveller 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not unheard of, but its usually only done in cases where there appears to be an attempt "ballot stuffing" (typically, a lot of anon users coming en masse and voting one particular way). On this particular afd, I don't see any unusual activity to warrant usage of the template (in my opinion). -- MisterHand 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• The best I can think of is rename along the lines suggested by Mattley, or merge to Guy Kewney. I'm sure Mr Coma isn't notable (and I'd not heard his real name until today; previous reports I'd read said he was a cabbie), but the mixup is certainly worthy of reporting. --kingboyk 13:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. John Tierney based his op-ed column in today's NY Times on him, The People's Pundit: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/opinion/20tierney.html?hp Mbutts 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 46th edit
• Keep. This was a event was notable around the world and had the guy not receive numerous television appearances due to this mixup, I probabily wouldn't have voted to keep this article. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This was a very notable event, as the BBC is not known to committ such a grave mistake, being the reputable organization it is seen as. This mistake is pretty rare, and I can bet it won't happen again for at least a decade or two. Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbiteroftruth (talk • contribs)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Nobody will have heard of him after a couple of weeks' time. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This event gained a lot of media coverage around the world. Granted it's not the most important news, but it is certainly notable. Celardore 20:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - piece of BBC News 24 history. Huge amount of media interest at the time. --OscarthecatFile:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - For now, I say strong keep. Maybe in a year or two, this can be nominated again, but right now I think it deserves to stay and belongs in the encyclopaedia -- I also disagree that it doesn't meet WP:BIO. -Abscissa 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. For the moment this event has made news around the world. My expectation is that it will continue to be cited for years to come as one of the great broadcasting screwups of all time. I'd put it on par with the infamous Heidi Game, which has a Wikipedia page and which is also still discussed years after the fact. In short, let's give this a little time and then decide if it's deletable. SnappingTurtle 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the event is notable. I would however have no objection to the article being moved to a name reflective of the event rather than the person and making Guy Goma a redirect. Poobarb 03:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Big mistake for a notable institution. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone to whom I have told this story since I learned about it has been very interested. This is just slightly more than a human interest story. It is a demonstration of how the best laid plans of mice and men . . . worthy of inclusion in an open encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.198.196 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - after the incident he bacame notable and is all over the news. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's famous now! and still famous! did you notice how he was received in the talk show ? if he'd ever be anonymous again, we'll discuss the removal then... 82.216.205.222 08:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Jabe88
• Delete - non-notable accident. Maybe we should have a page for the event, but not the person. JRP 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noteable event. Thanatosimii 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noteable event. --Billpg 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep god damn you this man has grasped the worlds attention and i say, with every fibre of my being, that the world should be allowed to share in his story User:Ben Payton
• Keep - If Elena Filatova is taken as a precedent, then we should keep this article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As someone stated, he is somewhat well-known now. I think it was incredibly petulant to put this up for deletion. Hauser 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Petulant??? How exactly? Please, stay off the personal attacks. Worldtraveller 11:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not a personal attack, it just seems that this being listed for deletion is ridiculously overzealous considering the amount of information on Wikipedia about other topics that I'm sure have relevance to even less people than Guy Goma's. Please don't make sudden assumptions. Hauser 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Overzealous is one thing, petulant is quite another. I wouldn't take any offence at all at being accused of being overzealous (though I would disagree), but I do take offence at being called petulant. Worldtraveller 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. the wub "?!" 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How long is this expected to be an AFD? Consensus clearly states a, well, consensus.... Celardore 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why delete this? there are far more insignificant pages out there. rambo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paaerduag (talk • contribs)
  • Why keep something, just because worse articles exist? Worldtraveller 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's help the guy with the flu before the guy with the broken leg.--Muchosucko 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is big news, it even hit other countries such as Australia which makes him a world wide celebrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.188.12 (talk • contribs)
• Keep helpful for encycl--Muchosucko 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notably encyclopedic Alexbrewer 02:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I searched for this on Wikipedia, and I was pleased to see the article was already here. If it was not, I would have requested it! It is a bizarre idea to delete something from a public encyclopedia that the public wish to find out about. Besides which, the event in question was amongst the funniest things I have ever seen.--Jdwhite 08:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. I hope Worldtraveller has learned something from the huge margin of this vote. Everyking 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What am I supposed to have learned? If I see an article I think should be deleted, I'll nominate it. If it's resoundingly kept, no real problem - no-one's lost out by be nominating it. Worldtraveller 10:26, 23 May 2006 (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.