Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Uso


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Eta Uso

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A blogger who graduated in 2014, clearly a very able student but there's nothing here to prove he's widely known, or had a chance to develop a successful career. Most of these citations are to pieces of writing by him, or to his alma mater's website. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I politely disagree that 'Eta Uso' is not widely known. However, referring to an individual as whether being widely known or not, can also be based on perspective. To this end, I will say that though he might not be a household name when using a wholistic context, he is however popular in his country - Nigeria and I think this will suffice as well. He is widely known within the non governmental community, mostly as a youth and democracy activist and the articles in question, though mostly written by him, they have however been published on very popular and famous websites due to his notability. I will also like to add that his Twitter page (https://twitter.com/royaltyuso) is also verified by Twitter and this action by Twitter further speaks, moreso boldly of his notability. Based on this, I politely request you reconsider your request for deletion as the individual in question is a notable individual Sandynigerian (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd need to find some proof of this. If he is popular or important then there should be some secondary, independent coverage about him. That is the essence of Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Apart from the Bangor University magazine, everything cited in the article is by him, not independent. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sandynigerian (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I have been able to come across an independent coverage. He is a popular activist and I was confident there will sure be proof to attest to this. Here is one of them Members of Civil Society Share Their Expectations For Edo State Governorship Elections. I will edit his page and attach this additional proof.
 * That's not about him either, it's a short quote from him on a political website. Sionk (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sandynigerian (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Governorship elections, just like Presidential elections, are taken very seriously in Nigeria. And we will both agree that the coverage on Watching The Vote website focuses strictly on expectations from duly accredited Civil Societies by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). INEC is the sole body of government which is in charge of elections in Nigeria. Now to make my point; 1. INEC will not give accreditation to random individuals or organizations to monitor or observe elections in Nigeria, except you have attained a certain degree of influence and status in the society as it relates to election causes. 2. #WatchingTheVote (the website that independently featured him) is guided by the Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation (DoGP) and Code of Conduct for Nonpartisan Election Observers and Monitors. This is a very high level non-partisan body and they also do not seek and publish expectations from random individuals but from influential individuals and organization who have the clout to shape or dictate narratives by their words and action. In addition, and like I pointed out earlier, his popularity is in an uncommon sector (civil society and non-government) and as such, assessing him in same notability context of politicians or music stars will not be a fair assessment.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I respectfully disagree with User Taketa, as I have given significant evidence to the contrary above.. Sandynigerian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GNG - Fails WP:GNG as there are insufficient neutral secundary sources about the subject. -- Taketa (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the wiki has since been updated with additional references since this discussion began Sandynigerian (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only 2 of the references are about the subject and they are both from a university paper. All other are written by the subject or the subject makes a comment. That is not sufficient by far. There need to be multiple text specifically about the subject by reliable noteworthy neutral secundaire sources. I see not a single one. -- Taketa (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, your concerns have already been addressed in detail in earlier discussions above. Sandynigerian (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read your explanations and they are not a satisfactory reason to keep the article. The only way to change my opinion is by adding the sources I requested which you have not done so far. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 03:20, 14 December 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.