Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igbo Abasiama


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Igbo Abasiama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:PROF, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG either. The article cites no sources, and a google search returns no relevant links except for youtube videos. Both google scholar and google books return no related links at all. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is supposed to be about a scientist, but it fails to list one notable achievement or published work. It describes his life story with not one notable event. EternalFlare (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have included Abasiama's research paper, The Evidence for the Existence of Bigfoot, as a notable published work. --Srflecha (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Srflecha. I appreciate the help sorting this out! Unfortunately, we need sources which discuss Igbo Abasiama, not sources that he published which talk about other things. The sources need to show that he, as a subject, has received coverage. For instance, if the New York Times had written an article about him, and how he was influential in the Zoology community, that would be a great source! Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any sources like that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jess, I understand your perspective and quite honestly there are not very many sources on him because he is from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Very little attention is given to researchers and professors in that country. In fact, I can find little information about the school itself (much less the professors). --Srflecha (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I understand, and that's totally fine! Most people on Earth fall into that category. But, it just means that he wouldn't meet our current requirements for inclusion here. He probably meets the requirements on other sites, but ours on wikipedia are pretty strict about requiring secondary sources which cover a person before we create an article for them. Not every professor qualifies (which is why we have WP:PROF). If he ends up getting that kind of coverage in the future, then we can definitely create an article for him then!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So would a university article about him count or not? What about a local newspaper? --Srflecha (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you can take a look at WP:N (WP:GNG is also helpful). Usually, we need significant coverage in sources which are independent of the subject. A university article may or may not be helpful; it would depend entirely on the article. The same goes for a local newspaper. As a general principle, I would say probably not, unless they were accompanied by more coverage elsewhere too. I hope that helps!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Srflecha uses the term "published" very loosely. This manuscript has never appeared in a mainstream scientific journal, nor even in the popular literature. It is available through the subject's personal website and this is evidently what is meant by "published". Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Theopolisme   ( talk )  03:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's intriguing to me that cryptozoology is something one can be a professor of, but we need evidence of passing WP:PROF and currently there is none. Indeed, I am having trouble even finding verifiable evidence that he is on the faculty at Kinshasa; their web server is a bit of a mess but I can't find his name on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I have a hard time buying any of this. This is the first time I've ever heard of a "Professor of Cryptozology". The few real academics who care about this stuff have degrees in regular zoology or anthropology/sociology. When I grabbed a random sentence from the research paper, I found that it was copied from our article Patterson-Gimlin film. ("Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and 'the men then tracked it for three miles (5 km), but lost it in the heavy undergrowth.'") Zagal e jo^^^ 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. To all the above observations, add that he does not have a single published paper listed in WoS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete as probable hoax (unverifiable information), and utterly non-notable besides. Ray  Talk 10:25, 31 January 2013 (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.