Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Peace Institute (2nd nomination)


 * 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 all --Haemo 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

International Peace Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article and some related pages were nominated for deletion in September 2006, with no consensus reached. All seem to relate to Chika Sylva-Olejeme, a Nigerian man of questionable notability. His chief claim to fame seems to be an "appointment" as an "ambassador of peace" by the Universal Peace Federation, run by Sun Myung Moon, but our article on the Universal Peace Federation says these "ambassadors" are volunteers, not appointed diplomats.

These articles all seem to reference each other – Sylva-Olejeme developed Post Philosophy, whose branch is Christian Post Philosophy, which led to the International Peace Institute, which developed the Peace Conservation System, which obeys the Universal Peace Protocol, which backs the peace creed, which is based on Post Philosophy. It's a maze of pseudo-notability. There are about four ELs, used by almost all of these articles, to pages at UNESCO – but two are '404 Not Found' (dead), one is to a kids art program, and one is a proposal to have a project of some sort that either hasn't happened or won't happen.

This is a textbook example of using Wikipedia to establish credibility where little exists. They are mostly unreferenced, except to each other, and the third-party references are of questionable quality and relevance. Begone with them. Krakatoa Katie  16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Included with this nomination are:


 * , and
 * , and
 * , and
 * , and
 * , and
 * , and


 * Delete all as nominator. Krakatoa  Katie  16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. -Drdisque 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep all I don't understand why there is a second deletion all of this issues where adressed on the first attempt, i think the talk pages are the right places to deal with this, making it a case of speedy deletion is funny and i think it shows niether maturity nor proper investigation on the subject finally i don't think User:KrakatoaKatie has enough information to make up this process. Wikipedia should not be a place of hate especially for such uninformed hate actions.Motegole 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * Delete per above. This appears to be a house of straw. I'm afraid I'm missing any indication of notability in these. I am puzzled by Motegole's hate remark. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. How is it hatefull to say a subject lacks notability. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep all i don't have any issue about deleting an article that lacks notability but what about if it does not lack notability? that is why the right place is at the talk pages i have contributed a lot in these articles but i refuse to defend the infomation on a deletion log, remember things published on the internet are not the only source of notability, just like i said earlier this is funny and immature it lacks the drive to improve knowledge.  Discuss it in greater detail not simply go to the deletion option, i think to delete an article above a year in wikipedia for lack of Notability  new evidence of the original facts being false should be provided and on the talk pages too.Motegole 03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Motegole, you don't get two !votes, just one. You can comment as many times as you like, but only one keep/delete per editor is allowed, so your second 'speedy keep all' has been stricken. Wikipedia has a deletion policy which clearly indicates that this is indeed the designated place and format to discuss deletions. If you choose not to "defend the information on a deletion log", that's your prerogative. Lastly, please be civil in your comments to me and to others who participate in these discussions. It is difficult to hear reasoning if it comes with a personal attack. -  Krakatoa  Katie  04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * no one gets a vote this is a discussion not a vote.Ridernyc 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment i am sorry KrakatoaKatie if this has been a personal attack, i regret the use of any language that has offended you and just as User:Ridernyc has pointed out it is not about votes it is a discussion i have signed my name each time it does not stop the Deletion if this is the proper procedue in fact discussions on the talk pages as well does not save an article, an article that deserves to be deleted will be deleted Motegole 07:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All - there is a paucity of reliable sources as outlined by the nominator. What few references are provided in the article do not constiture reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, should have been deleted the first time when two of the three keeps were from an IP and a new account. Agree with Whpq. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment may i direct this discussion to Deletion policy especially (Alternatives to deletion) and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially (Arguments without arguments), we are talking multiple articles here, where do you start to critize of defend up to eight different wikipedia articles. honestly i don't think this discussion has developed enough to even consider the systemic bias i still think that in the relevant pages justice will be done to each article individually and on its own merit Motegole 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - I will then expand my reply. I reviewed each article in the nomination, so this is not a case of just looking at one article and assuming the rest are the same.  I did not simply accept the word of the nominator.  I conducted Google searches to look for references for each article.  Although many result are turned up, I cannot find any that meet the definition of reliable sources.  So the "delete" from me has been considered before registering the opinion.  I am quite open to a "keep" and could be persuaded by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  But such sources are not provided in the articles, nor was I able to find them myself.  And from what I can see, I don't see evidence that such sources could be found.  As such, I would maintain a position of "delete". -- Whpq 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I too looked at each article, considered whether or not there was notability or verifiability. I did not find any reason to not delete the bunch. I also feel there is a stridency to assert as notable that which is not. To have so many articles essentially about the same not notable subject with a twist to each so strenuously defended only heightens that sense. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim   22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find anything in Google News Archives to source this with. --Pleasantville 18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all I'm no fan of these multiple nominations--but this is an appropriate use, as there does not seem a single one of them that has any notability or any real sourcing. Not even the bio article, which would normally be the one to merge into--there is no demonstration of any notability at all. The prior AfD was no-consensus and a full year ago. Now is a good time to reach consensus, as we seem to be doing. DGG (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think thats why some people sometimes consider wikipedia as simply  activity of a mob, where research is of little importance, and i suspect thats why  wikipedia itself condems the goggle test, and why there is the systemic bias that accepts that sometimes  notability is relative especially the question of  how much evidence is required to achieve or demonstrate notability and to who. see "I've never heard of it" . Anyway i think i would be more interested in the outcome this discussion, at least we now all know what is at stake. if we rightly reach a delete consensus it will be absolutly fine with me Motegole 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could provide verifiable sourcing that supports subject's meeting WP:BIO, it would be a stronger argument to "keep" than railing about the "unfairness of Wikipedia." This is an argument sometimes used in AfD's by creators of articles that are about a non notable subject where meeting WP:BIO has not been proven. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   these information are not posted on the Internet and are not meant to be. Motegole 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment  thank you Dlohcierekim  i assume you have heard me suggest that the articles should the trashed on the talk pages, i am not trying to be difficult but i just don't think here is proper. i am ready to post unto wikipedia formal documentation including UNESCO Diplomatic Notes (Note Vabales} Nigerian Goverment Diplomatic Notes, letters from the UK Paliament to both mr Olejeme and the international Peace Institute since 2000 notwithstanding that Mr Olejeme is a Track II diplomat see Track II diplomacy
 * Reply - I fail to see how these articles support notability for any of the articles that have been nominated for deletion. -- Whpq 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

my emphasis is that a talk page is already running since 10 October 2006.
 * Comment Dear Whpq what i did was to refer to Track II diplomacy as agured on the bio page by user Kobrown i was not using those references to deal with the question of notability please take the whole comment in context.

before i forget try to consider notability as worthy of notice WP:BIO "Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"." Motegole 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply' - the main thrust of discussion here has been the lack of independent reliable sources about the subjects. The articles really lack that.  Searching for them have turned up none.  And requests to provide them have us just talkng around in circles.  Quite simply put, reliable sources need to be provided. -- Whpq 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment thank you Whpq,  with the discussion so far let me deal with Verifiability and reliable source issue in Bio article i think a mention of Mr Olejeme at  United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO National Steering Committee meeting held on Monday, February 6, 2006 (14.00 – 17.30) Council Room, Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1Jis verifiable and it is a reliable source.  mention of mr Olejeme in an award carried out by the Mayor of the London Borough of Haringey, North London, 28th January 2006 Hornsey Moravian Church, Priory Road, Hornsey.is verifiable and it is a reliable source.What i expect is for additional information to be requested on the talk pages which is ongoing see notice how direct the recourse to the talk is advised. that explains my initial remark that the process is funny. we should be talking about the Encyclopedia content, Verifiability and reliable sourcing where necessary, for example  the nominator in his intro actually said that "His chief claim to fame seems to be an "appointment" as an "ambassador of peace" by the Universal Peace Federation, run by Sun Myung Moon  but our article on the Universal Peace Federation says these "ambassadors" are volunteers, not appointed diplomats" this argument  you may agree has been adressed by the wikipedia policy that doesn't consider fame but "worthy of notice" and the talk page on the Bio article reference to Track II diplomacy. There are of course a lot other consideration which i probably do not know and i am open to learn. Once more let me say this upfront i dont intend to disrespect any one with this comment. There's a lot issues we have dealt in this disscussion i suppose,  i am happy about it, i hope we can arrive to what we are looking for. Motegole 14:14, 30 October 2007 (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.