Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okechukwu Amah


 * 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 no consensus. As this is primarily due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Okechukwu Amah

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

Promotional biography of a living person. Does not meet the general notability guidelines for academics. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople,  and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: it's a mess, but he seems to have published a lot. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I considered nominating this myself but held off because of the Google scholar citation indicators which seemed solid. Maybe borderline but I’m not convinced deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sort of article, a primary-sourced listing of career milestones, is ok for academics who pass WP:PROF, but not ok if we are aiming for notability through WP:GNG; in that case, we need instead in-depth reliable independent secondary sources, and we don't have those. But I don't think he passes WP:PROF either: the citation record, while respectable, is not enough to convince me of passing WP:PROF. "He seems to have published a lot" is not a notability criterion. His managerial and administrative roles are not high enough for notability that way. And I see nothing else that could even be a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2023 (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.