Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekumeku Movement


 * 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 keep. Sorry for doing it 4 minutes early. :) (non-admin closure)  J 947(c) (m) 01:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ekumeku Movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

article fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. 77.189.193.114 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 01:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as written. Unsourced.  Non-neutral, containing language such as "imperishable legacy".  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Undoubtedly the article, as it currently is, is poorly sourced. However, a search around reveals two academic sources on the topic:




 * and general coverage of the topic in a number of other books via the 'Find sources: books' link above.


 * So verifiable, notable and reliable sources but the article is in need of some improvement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)
 * Found another academic source: --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as there's Notability given the informative sources, sources that have now occurred since the nomination's concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as academic reliable sources have been highlighted and there are more book sources Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick BEFORE shows several book references. Sourcing in article can be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Now it has sources, the basis of this AFD has disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable. Sources exist. Article needs inline sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Malcolmxl5, the subject clearly passes WP:V; WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are a matter of cleanup. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:21, 19 September 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.