Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifeoma Okafor-Obi


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ifeoma Okafor-Obi

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

Refs are profiles and interviews, event pages and company pages. No significant secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO   scope_creep Talk  12:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women,  and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - there appears to be insufficient secondary support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. My online search finds coverage of her as a spokesperson, not coverage about her. Sources in the article purporting to support text about "her family escaping the Maitatsine uprising in Kaduna in 1983", e.g. Washington Post, BBC, are about the massacre, and the other source is promotional content from her employer that does not support the text. Many sources in the article lack independence because they are either directly produced by her employer or are promotional content from her employer published elsewhere, e.g, , . Beccaynr (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Beccayner, most of the sources used are secondary sources with number of supported primary sources which are directed produced by the creator through research. This is basically because the region where is is coming from is a developing country in Africa. For escaping the Maitatsine uprising in Kaduna, it is a factual reliable facts recorded by other secondary sources such as which you mentioned in your text. I understand that the reason for adoption of more references to the work was to give more credence to the page and not for promotional purposes, as the individual has no idea that such page has been created on her credit. She a humanitarian and philanthropist helping young people through her experience in her community, and this has earn her notability within her community. To my best of knowledge, the page qualified for a biography of notability. Hilspress (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which would you say are the WP:THREE most significant secondary sources that cover her? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I discovered that that most relevant part of the article with significant secondary sources has been erased. Hence affected the credibility of the page unlike how it was before the easing occurred. However there are still number of independence refs. And from my research, I also discovered that she no longer work with most of the organizations stated in the page, therefore citations from these organisations must have been enacted only for reference purposes. Thanks Hilspress (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't overly matter right now what's on the article, it's more a case of what sources WP:NEXIST to give evidence of notablity. So please could you point us to which 3 secondary sources you feel are most significant? -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * refs: 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, 30, 31 are significant independent sources  Hilspress (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 just states they are an instructor, so not significant or independant at all. 7 has a bit of content, but not convinced is independant if they were part of the show. 11 isn't much about her. 12 I couldn't see them mentioned at all? 13 at first glance looked ok but seems to be written by TEF and hence not independant, 30 is clearly a primary source (written by the subject and hence not independant), and 31 is just a church website and wouldn't be independant even if it talked about it. So overall I'm still not convinced there is sufficient coverage to show notability at this time. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am more convinced that those neutal refs being secondary to my best of knowledge is adequate, alongside other primary sources which are in accordance to Wikipedia ref policies. Indeed, I also feel that the page needs improvements which would be improved with time. Hilspress (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As Beccaynr said, doesn't seem to be sufficient independant sourcing to meet WP:GNG. WP:PROMO doesn't count towards notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * there are amount of reliable secondary sources used for the references Hilspress (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment This is an assessment of sources, including sources identified by Hilspress in the discussion above.
 * Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 18 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.