Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runcie C. W. Chidebe


 * 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  23:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Runcie C. W. Chidebe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is in poor state, reads like it was written by a COI editor to promote the subject. References seem like PR releases rather than independent coverage. The main claim of significance is on the subject owning an organization that creates awareness on cancer, but I can't seem to see how this organization is "uniquely special" from the hundreds of cancer awareness campaigns all over the world. A Google search returned several passing mentions, but nothing "striking" in my interpretation of Wikipedia notability for persons, infact the best coverage were for the foundation, not for the individual. Considering the issues with the article, I suggest it needs a fresh start, not even for the individual but the foundation he founded. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Week delete I've been real skeptical about this page, which explains some of the tags I added long way back. The foundation might be notable - I don't know, but I'm really uncomfortable with the coverage of the subject which are not really independent in such that notability was not fully established. I'd give a pass for COI as another editor has been working towards cleaning that aspect. With all this in mind, I think the article should be deleted except notable independent coverage are added, which I have not seen enough of. Mahveotm (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2019 (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.