Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Ibeneme


 * 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. clpo13(talk) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Chika Ibeneme

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Aside being a commissioner for a brief period, I could only find passing mentions about the subject which isn't enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails major notability guidelines and is of no encylopedic value hence a !delete vote is best applicable here Celestina007(talk to me)
 * Keep National chairman of a political party in Nigeria. Notable as Per WP:NPOL. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * She fails every notes on WP:POLITICIAN. You should also note that WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay not a deletion guideline or policy. From findings, she has never held any remarkable political position or ran for a political office and she has not received significant press coverage. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being the leader of a small, newly registered political party without existing representation in the legislature is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:NPOL — it would be enough for an article if she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it, but it is not enough to hand her an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of solid sources. But the sources here simply aren't cutting it: #1 and #7 are primary sources; #2 is a non-notable blog; #3, #5 and #8 are needless repetition of the same post to a user-generated discussion forum; #4 verifies a tangential fact about the political party she used to be associated with but fails to mention her name in conjunction at all; and #6 just glancingly namechecks her existence in an article that isn't about her. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make someone eligible for a Wikipedia article. And no, this is not a systemic bias issue, either: Nigeria does have real newspapers that can support a proper GNG pass without needing us to give it some sort of "bad sources are okay because it's Nigeria" exemption. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 20 May 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.