Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obinwanne Okeke (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obinwanne Okeke

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Almost entirely promotional . I doubt there is enough reliable material for a NPOV article DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been edited to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy User:Dinovate (talk)
Keep. Doesn't seem too promotional to me in its current form since its cleanup-- no external links, most information is sourced, seems like a fairly straightforward stub. Needs copyediting and the addition of some references, but a quick Google search (especially using 'news') provides many reliable sources (Forbes, Guardian, BBC News). Gilded Snail (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Forbes 30 Under 30 lists 600 people per year, which is not exclusive enough to confer notability on someone on its own. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources cited in the article fall short:
  1. Rallinca Media: Not independent, signficiant, or reliable. Routine mention from his PR agency.
  2. BBC: Not independent. This interview is a primary source because Okeke did most of the talking, and there was no separate analysis of him.
  3. Forbes.com: Not significant. Short one-paragraph mention.
  4. Bella Naija: Not significant or reliable. Passing mention from a blog without named staff.
  5. WeRunThings: Not independent or reliable. Interview from a blog.
  6. African Entrepreneur Startup Project: Not reliable. Blog with no known editorial process.
  7. Pleasures Magazine: Not significant or reliable. Insignificant coverage from a magazine without named writers.

From the sources not cited in the article, I found one article in Pulse.ng that may qualify, although I'm not sure about the reliability of that website since they don't provide information on their staff. However, one article isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~_{double vote striked} Not promotional. Sources quoted are reliable from my research.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promotional article for a nn businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article seems moderate, isn't promotional in any way. Besides, all claims are sourced. In my opinion, and as a Nigerian, I'll say the Pulse.ng article is relible (cited it) Geekdidi (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it meets GNG to me. - Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable BLP. One of the Forbes entries states that in a two year period with 24 employees Okeke (or his company) made $170,000. There is just not enough notability for an article that is of encyclopedic interest. Expanding the article is noble but 3 or 4 references from the same (Forbes) or closely related sources does not add to notability. If we lower the notability bar to a CEO of a small company (34 employees) and miniscule income ($170,000), we might as well do away with notability requirements and submit to advertising for small companies and owners. Being a BLP there should be no question of source reliability or subject notability. Just because there is some sourcing should not mean an automatic article. Otr500 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newslinger Daask (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] - I am merely bringing this up for analysis, I have no idea if this is a reliable source. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:25, 29 August 2018 (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.