Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adesua Dozie


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Adesua Dozie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although as at the time this article is being nominated for deletion there are no sources present in the article, a before search did show this, which appears to be written by a guest editor, this which appears to be a promotional sponsored post & this which appears to be a mere announcement. In all, I do not see WP:GNG satisfied as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This article has been significantly improved with the addition of credible independent sources. this is in addition to the several in line link that has now been added to the article. The article therefore meets Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and Notability. I therefore vote for keep. Omorodion1 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — The editor above @, is the article creator.
 * I have analyzed most of the sources used in the article already in my opening AFD rationale, your two new inclusions appear to be this(which is an interview thus isn't independent of her) & this which is a list article with very short biographies affixed to each entry, this doesn’t adhere to WP:SIGCOV & of no value to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage. How else might I explain to you that this subject isn’t notable just yet? If you want me to create a table I honestly would. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I've reviewed the available sources and the reasoning provided by Celestina007, and I agree that the article fails WP:NBIO. Edge3 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2020 (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.