Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efe Ukala


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Efe Ukala

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bio of businessperson, fails WP:BASIC because coverage relies on sources that are affiliated with the university that she attended, or news sources that appear to be sponsored by or associated with the company's marketing. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should keep this article as I respectfully oppose and disagree with the deletion reasons. This article does not fail WP:BASIC because of the following:
 * 1.	The Article and the subject pass the following criteria:
 * a)	they pass the WP:BASIC and WP: VERIFYOR policies as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.
 * b)	The sources used in the work are reliable and verifiable, they substantially pass the WP:SOURCEF. The sources are directly support the information as presented in the article. And a proper contextual is made in this article WP:RSCONTEXT, a review of these sources check would show that the reliance on the published sources as per [WP:PUBLISHED] are appropriate.
 * c)	In consideration of the sources of the reference, the article referenced notable and reputable news organizations in compliance with the WP:NEWSORG policy such as the guardian, the nation, Independent Newspaper, Forbes, BBC news, … and the article substantially sticks to the sources to describe its subject/person as per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Additionally, the above sources and some other references sufficiently referenced secondary sources as per WP:SECONDARY policy. They are news and publications from magazines and mainstream newspapers. See WP:SOURCES
 * d)	In consideration of sources that might have experienced link rot or may later experience link rot, I am of the opinion that, their reliability should not be rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be contacted as per WP:RX and WP:REX. See also WP:NEXIST the WP:POSSIBLE
 * e)	The person has also received significant awards or honors and has been nominated for others. This is specifically important as these awards appear to be in diaspora which is therefore worthy of note to younger generation of Africans looking forward to doing exploit both home and abroad. See WP:ANYBIO


 * 2.	Based on the above reasons among others, I believe that the article and the subject/person should not be deleted because they meet the General Notability Guideline as per WP:GNG. I hold this view because, apparently, the person subject of the article has received significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV and as argued earlier, these sources which currently include BBC news and the United Nation Sources as well as African Development Bank Group sources and other notable media are independent and reliable sources which are very much reliable and verifiable as per the WP:NRV and WP:NRVE policies. I shall proceed to add some of these sources to the article in other to comply with the WP:NOTTEMPORARY policy.


 * 3.	Considering the extensive coverage of the person subject of the article, and also subjects the matter that brought her to limelight, Philanthropy and women empowerment in Africa, it is doubtful that the sources are all promotional in that regard. I firmly contend that the article and the sources satisfy the not promotion policy as per WP:NOTPROMOTION.


 * 4.	Further scrutiny would show that, the sources from relating to her school are in respect of the awards she got in school and black positions she held. There are other relevant sources apart from these.
 * On the basis of the forgoing, I respectfully disagree with the deletion reasons and recommend that Wikipedia should keep the article. Ogele (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The nonprofit organization ImpactHER has some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. UNWomen Africa July 2020, UNWomen Africa July 2020, The Guardian Nigeria 2018 (per WP:AFSL), The Guardian Nigeria (2018 interview), BBC (2020 interview with WP:SECONDARY framing), (after excluding WP:FORBESCON, press releases, independent blogs, and the WP:MEDIUM source in the article). A closer review of WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH could help determine whether sources are available to support an article about the organization. I mention this due to my attempts to find support for WP:BASIC notability and because I have been exploring an alternative to simply !voting delete as WP:TOOSOON. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per and  the rationale by . Unfortunately, i categorize articles such as this into “above BARE” but “below BASIC” I also do not see this article as one that has a real encyclopedic value as of now probably that may change at some point in time but currently it’s WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Additional research and referencing have been done since my last response and as per concerns. I disagree with the recommendation in respect of WP:TOOSOON and BARE as there are sufficient reliable and independent sources, both locally and internationally. Also, in view of the synch in the identified values of the subject of the article, a thorough overview and fact-checking on the references would debunk the initial assumption that necessitated the nomination for deletion.Ogele (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per and . Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2021 (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.