Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mawuena Trebarh

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 keep. per article improvements made subsequent to nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mawuena Trebarh

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

I don't think the notability requirements for biographies are met for this article. This is the only vaguely reliable, independent coverage of her. Otherwise it is routine hirings and firings: [1] [2] or interviews about her employer [3]. Further, per the comments at User_talk:Kweiqf relating to edits made in 2011, and the promotional tone of the article, it's highly likely that the article was created by an already blocked undisclosed paid editor: WP:TNT. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After researching this person, they appear to be notable in Ghana, as she's received articles in several of Ghana's biggest English news sources. I have added more sources to the article, and removed some of the promotional wording. The article now passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:37, 18 June 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.