Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igwe Amobi I of Ogidi


 * 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. Yes, all of them. --Core des at 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Igwe Amobi I of Ogidi
The background for this nomination starts with Amobi I of Ogidi - created by, later deleted as unverifiable/possible hoax.

I am now, on the same grounds, nominating the related articles for deletion:


 * Igwe Amobi I of Ogidi - created by
 * Princess Comfort Odinchezo Amobi of Ogidi - created by
 * Ghits for: "Comfort Odinchezo" -Wikipedia
 * Prince Samuel Nnabia Amobi of Ogidi - created by
 * Ghits for: "Samuel Nnabia" -Wikipedia
 * HRH Igwe Amobi II of Ogidi - created by
 * Princess Comfort Okpudili Amobi of Ogidi - created by
 * Ghits for: "Comfort Okpudili" -Wikipedia
 * comment Gotcha. Sorry to be pedantic but here is another example that illustrates my point. Princess_Comfort_Okpudili_Amobi_of_Ogidi This family were rulers only of Ogidi and therefore absolutely not the ruling family of any country - Ogidi is simply a regular sized town, in Anambra State, in Nigeria.  Only 6 Google hits on her, two of those being Wikipedia hits and two being Answer.com hits hit. Therefore this person and her family would not seem to fit your critera for being notable for being royal, but you have however seen fit to include the article. (...) Igbogirl 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (taken from Articles for deletion/King Igwegbe Odum, the Omenuko of History)

For further details, see User:Punkmorten/Amobi I of Ogidi. Punkmorten 09:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as likely hoax. I'm not seeing anything either on Google (outside Wikipedia mirrors, of course) or Google Books.  We cannot take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Punkmorten, good job researching. Unverifiable.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-19 16:46Z 
 * Delete per nom. Good job. It is extra work to examine the edit history of an editor but in the case of dubious edits does often pay off. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete extremely suspicious and unverified hoax, possibly intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to some sort of advance fee fraud. DWaterson 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and I'd support a block on User:Historicalsearch Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 01:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Nothing verifiable in these links. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:47, 20 October 2006 (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.