Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Ozurumba


 * 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. Numerically rather close, but unlike the "keep" opinions, several "delete" opinions assess the quality of the sources and are not substantially refuted in their analysis.  Sandstein  17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Blossom Ozurumba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed with the basis of sources but the depth of these sources show they are not actually substantial, and instead are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or other unconvincing coverage, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister  talk  17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - no indepth coverage from reliable sources could be found about the subject to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable social media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - hard to tell under all the promotional fluffiness, but there is one reputable mention that are at least semi-significant: . The others aren't that useful, while on google I only found this . Not enough for me to vote keep, but maybe someone else is able to search sources that aren't in English better than I am. Yvarta (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: By the standards apt to be extant in her home country, we have one clearly acceptable source in the article, plus the one Yvarta linked.  I think it's got potential and worth pinging WP:Women in Red to see if they can salvage it.   Montanabw (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * leaning Keep: the article should be able to be sourced surely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still rather on the fence, but will try and clean it up some, at least to get a springboard going. Might be in there awhile. Yvarta (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep (weak) -- I would give this article the benefit of the doubt, hoping that it may improve in the future. The work Yvarta has done is helping already and there are some claims to notability for the subject's social media work. Given the poor coverage of non-Western world in Wikipedia, I think keeping this article would be a net plus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. notability not sufficiently established. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment The name change provides more sources: an interview on HuffPost, interview, spotlight feature. Some of the sites look amateurish, but they appear to be legit and independent.  Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG, per Montanabw. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition to the sources presented by Yvarta, have found also 3, 4 and 5. Stanleytux (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - More than adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - particularly considering the context. Hmlarson (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks to pass WP:BIO with the sources in the article and those linked by and . &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment To be honest, I would to like to actually hear the opinion of some Nigerian editors on this. I'm sick of this whole "third world, disadvantaged country" nonsense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur and this will need to be relisted for better analysis as the Keep votes are in fact still not convincing how these are convincing for her own independent and substantial notability, not sinply social media profile attention. SwisterTwister   talk  02:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete on second thoughts. While the current version of the article is an improvement, the sources presented at this AfD do not sufficiently establish subject's notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like there's enough sources to make the subject pass notability tests. Article can also be expanded further with those sources. IllinoisPolska (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This person looks like she is a journalist with a massive social media presence.Pyrusca (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG. Many of the sources cited are not reliable, dead link or has casual mention. Appears to be a case of CITEKILL. Following is what I found on quick search;
 * Not a reliable source
 * Primary source
 * Not a reliable source
 * Dead link
 * Linkedin source. Not reliable
 * Dead link
 * Dead link
 * This is a blog
 * Not reliable
 * I am not too sure of this, but looks like "placed" news
 * This source does not even mention her name
 * Dead link
 * Casual mention
 * Her name is mentioned along with others
 * Casual mention
 * Casual mention.
 *  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems like some more discussion on the sources provided by Montanabw and Stanleytux is needed, which are the main claim of notability right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The analysis of the sources by is spot on. Many of them are clearly not reliable or secondary sources. (GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject). In addition I looked at the ones presented earlier
 * Huffpost interview Firsly an interview is a primary source. Secondly this is one of the HuffPost "blogs" which I tend not to trust after my encounter with a paid editor who was actually writing articles on HuffPost blogs and then creating a Wikipedia articles for his clients. These are apparently not subject to the same editorial standards as those by a staff contributor.
 * Trivial mention in BBC Sorry but this is a trivial mention.
 * Nairaland forum This is a forum which is not a reliable source at all.
 * Usergenerated content on Globalvoices Not reliable as Globalvoices allows anyone to publish on their platform, essentially reducing it to a user generated content/blog. Also an interview which is a primary source.
 * KonnectAfrica blog This looks like a blog and is essentially a WP:SPS. In addition, this is an interview again which is a primary source.
 * The smokescreen of sources deluded me at first, but on closer look at the sources themselves, I see that the subject is not notable as of yet. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, still delete -- sources are insufficient for independent notability and somewhat of a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Casual mentions are referred to. User-generated blogs pop up. Well... it's concering. The expanded analysis of the various articles cited as sources is troubling, and I have to agree what we don't have the truly reliable media coverage that we need for a biographical page. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. on two grounds: first, non-notble based on the analysis of the sources. Second, clear promotionalism. This manner of writing an "article" based on a multiplicity of very low grade sources is a standard technique of promotional editors, paid and unpaid. The real give-away, though is in the Early life and education paragraph: the emphasis on her early motivations, express in terms designed to make an emotional appeal, is the real staple of paid & unpaid promotional  editors.  You'll find it in the same place in thousands of articles. It's not a ring or conspiracy--it's a common trope learned from current techniques of advertising. We need to eliminate it from WP, and any article on an actual notable person contaminated with such stuff needs to have it removed; if it's too pervasive to be removed, it needs to be rewritten. She's not important enough to be worth the rewrite.  rewritten.  DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (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.