Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emeka Ilechukwu


 * 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. While there are numerically more editors asking to Keep this article, the editors asking for Delete have examined the sources and do not believe they establish notability which is the primary criteria we look for in a deletion assessment. There has also been mention of WP:TOOSOON which means that this person might be notable in the future but doesn't have the coverage right now to establish notability. If an editor would like this article to be draftified so they can continue to improve it and go through the AFC process for approval, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Emeka Ilechukwu

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recycled write up in different publications such as Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and The Sun. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts,  and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observation. I learn Wikipedia everyday, I am not perfect and don't know everything even on Wikipedia. I have also taken note of all your observation to avoid such errors in the future. My honest opinion will be to keep the article and allow users to modify or edits. Thank you Olugold (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, we need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. Everything in Wikipedia is a recycled write-up of different publications, that's almost the definition of our existence. Is the argument that these sources are unreliable, that the articles aren't in-depth, or that they are not independent of the subject? Sorry, no offence meant, just seeking clarification. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I’m in a tight schedule to respond to this. Ideally, it is okay, to check each nominated page before voting. Please, do so then tell me if you need want to see a reason. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's the nominator's job to give a reason why an article should be deleted. I am therefore suggesting procedural keep, with no prejudice against a properly formed nomination in future; the current nomination has not been carried out correctly and there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Note that AfD is not a vote; whoever closes the AfD will decide based on the strengths of each side's arguments, not on a straight tally of !votes. It's generally not a great idea to nominate things if your schedule is too tight to give reasoning. Elemimele (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , my job is just to nominate — and not persuade you to !vote for delete. Let's analyse the following sources.
 * Read the piece and tell me if they're not the same. I'm not pounding on this with you, again. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, solved! We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were asking for deletion on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is a recycled write up derived from multiple sources (which seemed a very weird reason to delete!). But you meant that the article should be deleted because all the sources are recycled write-ups derived from a single press-release. I'm therefore striking my previous comment and agree (after some general googling) that it's WP:TOOSOON and we should wait for a bit more before an article on this artist; therefore Delete unless someone comes up with a second, differently-derived source. Elemimele (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven gone through the write up and knowing fully well that WMF is on it's quest for free knowledge accessible to all, I believe that automatic deletion won't be all that encouraging at all. Considering the author's point, she has learnt and is still learning and therefore believes that the work should be left for others to be able to access it, make some edit and update it; hence, I believe that it should be left so. Deleting it will deprive others access to it. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the piece and tell me if they're not the same. I'm not pounding on this with you, again. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, solved! We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were asking for deletion on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is a recycled write up derived from multiple sources (which seemed a very weird reason to delete!). But you meant that the article should be deleted because all the sources are recycled write-ups derived from a single press-release. I'm therefore striking my previous comment and agree (after some general googling) that it's WP:TOOSOON and we should wait for a bit more before an article on this artist; therefore Delete unless someone comes up with a second, differently-derived source. Elemimele (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven gone through the write up and knowing fully well that WMF is on it's quest for free knowledge accessible to all, I believe that automatic deletion won't be all that encouraging at all. Considering the author's point, she has learnt and is still learning and therefore believes that the work should be left for others to be able to access it, make some edit and update it; hence, I believe that it should be left so. Deleting it will deprive others access to it. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

[Having gone through the article,I must confess it's educative and In my opinion I suggest you ""keep"" the article (not minding the errors) for other editors to work on it thanks... Senator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)senator chokoSenator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)] — Senator Choko (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment, I've read through the article and the reason for the nomination for deletion but in my own opinion, I would suggest the article be kept but rather improved based on the faults identified. I've also noticed that it's being improved on with the problem sources removed. Let's give this a chance and let it be improved on. Tochiprecious (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - He is an interesting artist, but it is TOOSOON as he does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. At first glance the article looks well constructed and sourced, but once I analyzed the sources, only one (The Sun Nigeria) would count towards establishing notability, and that's not enough. The Aworanka ref is a listing in an artist directory to buy his, and other artists work (these are often pay-to-play sites where an artist pays a fee to have a listing). The ThisDayLive ref is simply a name check with no content about his work at all. The ASO Savings refs are simply a listing of artists in a show, with no content about his work. What is needed to meet our criteria is WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent sources over a period of time. I'm not finding any notable shows or collections in notable museums. Maybe in a few years there will be enough on him and his work, but for now, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this elaborate breakdown. I see you have vast knowledge too. I'll like to ask: if Ilechukwu's articles is regarded as TOOSOON, what category do articles without a single citation on the English Wikipedia fall into? Please share links too I'd like to read and find out more. Thank you once again! Olugold (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Olugold, good to meet you here! I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. I'd suggest asking the user Bearcat about categories, I've learned a lot over the years from observing the way he works with them. I'll leave a message on your talk page with how I go about determining notability for artists, so as not to clog up this AfD with off-topic conversation. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin: please take note of the single purpose account (SPA) !voters. It is odd that they would find this AfD immediately after creating an account. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the article, from my own point of view it's instructive, errors can be corrected by others.""please keep"" Viva33 (talk) 7:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Viva33 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * [... "please keep" the article for other users to work on irrespective of the errors thanks (talk)7:10,10 August 2022(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korie uchechi Jennifer (talk • contribs)  — Korie uchechi Jennifer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have read the article and I must commend the author of this article, it is quite educative "please keep it" it will help other users"don't delete" if there's any error, it can be edited and more contributions can be addedNzechimere (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Nzechimere


 * Going through the article in question I do not see any unamendable mistake that would warrant total deletion. I would vote for the article to be left for improvement instead of total deletion. I believe that the author has taken corrections in case of the future. Daberechi16 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing Analysis - I'm not seeing how he meets WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST] criteria for notability that is required to k**p the article. See source assessment table below. Are there better sources that can be listed? I'm willing to change my !vote if independent significant coverage in reliable sources can be shown to exist. But at the this time the existing sources are poor quality in relation to establishing notability. It seems clearly WP:TOOSOON at this time, as stated above, maybe in a few years after some significant exhibitions, reviews, museum collections materialize. Perhaps someone would want to incubate it in draft space until that time? As I said, I think he's a really interesting artist, but that is not a reason to retain the article if it does not meet our guidelines.

Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON I do not find significant coverage, or evidence of awards or exhibitions or being part of a notable collection. Artfacts list inclusion in one group gallery exhibit. Sourcing Analysis above shows no evidence of notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked pretty hard for additional sources, but it's hard to find any. I'm generally concerned about the extent to which our reliance on Google searches may reduce our coverage of non-White or non-Anglophone artists, but the sourcing doesn't seem adequate for an article here. I agree that it looks like it may be too soon.--Jahaza (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing doesn't seem adequate for the subject fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2022 (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.