Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, can't find any reliable source discussing this subject in detail Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable non-profit foundation developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important lawyer and advocate for human rights in Nigeria. Sources include several paragraphs and few paragraphs and in-depth and an interview here and she is quoted here. She is a frequent writer of op-ed columns such as this one and this one as well as a speaker. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Future commenters, please review Tomwsulcer's sources Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lawyer as the user noted above. Article needs work, but there is enough coverage here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the user who listed sources says themselves, they're merely mentions and paragraphs along with interviews and a few named connections, none of that amounts to substance and, considering this current article is entirely an advertisement, there's nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not reliable sources. Columns written by the subject are not an indication of notability. We require reliable third party coverage about the subject. I looked at the sources above and I'm not really impressed. 1 is a passing mention/quote, 2 (same website as 1, but different article) is actually the same quote, copied word to word as the previous source (which makes me seriously doubt the reliability of the sources). 3, essentially a repost of her facebook post where she alleged that someone plagiarised her work. 4 redirects to an interview on a citizen journalism site, and 5 seems to be a quote. More importantly, almost every source talks about the subject in context of the organisation which potentially makes it a BLP1E. I guess this is WP:TOOSOON and in any case there is not enough coverage about the subject for WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source is not a passing mention/quote but in-depth treatment. She is quoted at length here and she is leading a protest here. She is known as a speaker on legal issues. Clearly a notable mover-shaker in the world of Nigerian politics and meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being quoted at length actually shows there was nothing better to publish, or chosen to publish but her own words, and then to make matters serious, WP:GNG means nothing if the article still exists for advertising, so in this case WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT apply, and are taken seriously when articles simply are supported by triviality such as mere quotes and other mentions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:03, 27 October 2016 (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.