Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nwankwo Nwankwo


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nwankwo Nwankwo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

G11 borderline eligible promotional piece on a non notable Nigerian businessman and king of a very small clan who doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria for inclusion, they do not satisfy WP:BASIC, WP:BIO, WP: GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The king is an author but doesn’t meet WP:NAUTHOR also. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The author might not be notable but the book is an important piece on the history and culture of the Ndoki ethnic group. This article is part of Nigeria Wikimedia user group effort to give Ethnic groups and Communities south eastern a presence in Wikipedia. By bringing important knowledge and facts about them to this platform for posterity sake.(talk) 3:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — @, I don’t understand, if you knew a person wasn’t notable why did you create an article on that person in the first place? Secondly, I don’t agree that the book is notable, it was launched barely eight days ago and hasn’t been reviewed critically but just appears on sites where to purchase it from. The closest thing to a review on the book was the one done by you, so I’m not sure you are seeing this from an objective stance at the moment. In summary, the king isn’t notable a before search doesn’t turn up anything concrete. Your intentions may be good but on this collaborative project, if someone's alleged notability cannot be verified by RS then it shouldn’t be on Wikipedia. Per your comments above there are many other ways to bring awareness to this King & his clan but creating an article for the sake of its subject to have a Wikipedia presence is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — @When I say not notable I mean perhaps from your perspective. The author has served in the Executive council of the Government of Rivers State Nigeria. And the book was published since 2018. It was made available online as part of sensitization effort. It is available for free in free ebooks downloading sites this article was not for promotional reason.

I think I used the wrong language when I said online presence. The fact is many young people in developing countries like Nigeria trust wikipedia when it comes to fact and knowledge about people and places. The may not search vigorously beyond the first search results. Articles like this will make them get easy information and perhaps direct them to sources where they might get more. Ichinga Samuel (talk) 3:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any reliable, independent, published sources being cited, let alone enough to demonstrate sigcov — the one from The Sun comes closest, but I don't know how RS it is. (And that's to say nothing of how the vast majority of the article is entirely unsupported, and in any case consists largely of promo fluff and peacockery.) The only way this could be kept is if the referencing is significantly improved, otherwise there doesn't seem much to debate. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2021 (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.