Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola


 * 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 Snow delete. BencherliteTalk 12:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a large number of unsuccessful lawsuits sourced to nothing but legal filings in which the lawsuits are rejected. No evidence of independent notability or external reliably-sourced coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article also has extensive BLP issues, because it makes claims that named, identifiable living people are responsible for various corrupt, illegal or unethical actions, again supported by nothing more than Akinlemibola's own legal filings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY OPPOSE DELETION This is sad. It seems that the argument is that if a person does not like the content of an article, that person can delete the article. The lawsuits are also still pending. I think that is also part of the point of the article. How are these claims "outlandish" simply because they revolve around the Mayor of Chicago or Chicago Public Schools? Also, if you follow along with the lawsuits, you will find that there has not been anyone who has justified themselves in the Mayor's Office, even with specific claims. So I will assume you are calling these claims "outlandish" simply because the judges threw out some of them immediately. That's a snobby attitude, even when there is direct evidence for the judges not being truthful. It was clear as day and outlined as much. Also, these claims are referenced to the lawsuits and have never been rejected. These are all public interest issues that need to be discussed, especially when it comes to the public parties involved (Chicago Public Schools, City of Chicago, etc.). It's sickening and needs to be disputed. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7


 * Note: it appears TheWikiKing7 is the creator of the page in question.JMWt (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - first it is not for WP to decide whether lawsuits are legitimate or notable. Second, it is plainly obvious that WP does not indiscriminately collect information about in-progress lawsuits. It isn't anything to do with "snobbiness", it is just a reality of living in a world where there are thousands and thousands of lawsuits filed every day. Only a very small number are notable enough to be on wikipedia, usually because they've been cited afterwards in legal opinion, have changed laws etc. WP:INDISCRIMINATE JMWt (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No news coverage of her - which should be there if she were notable. If he court case is notable - then it should enter Wikipedia only after it is covered by reliable sources. Coverage of "Grace Akinlemibola" is limited to - which is limited to a single tweet (in a bunch) from her account.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no news coverage of these lawsuits, so this article completely fails the most basic requirements at WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see how these lawsuits are notable, fails WP:GNG. Not to mention no one knows who she is, so she herself fails WP:GNG. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No mention in any press of these lawsuits, should wait for them to be finished/judged upon before writing about them. L3X1 (distant write)  14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no indication of notability on the part of the filer, given a cursory Google search. There's even less about the lawsuits. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a serial creator of crap articles and therefore comments such as this me nervous, Beyond My Ken. -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete If the person filing the lawsuits is unnotable, then a list of the lawsuits they've filed is even less so.  Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary sources are supplied. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND to fight rl legal battles in. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  09:11, 30 March 2017 (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..