Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Annabelle2010/Princess Omosivie Ann Edebiri

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Annabelle2010/Princess Omosivie Ann Edebiri


I can't find any trace of this person on the internet - though the alleged grandfather exists. This could be a big hoax. If it is real, it contains unsourced negative material, personal details that have no reason to be posted on the internet, and other inappropriate material and OR.

Created by a SPA in 2010 with no edits outside this page. An IP has now blanked or requested deletion times (presumably the creator, perhaps having lost their password). These blankings have all been reverted - illustrating nicely why putting blanking templates is quite unsatisfactory.

It has also been copied to mirrors and the links to the page show up in search, but nothing else that confirms anything about this person. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Unlikely to be suitable, agreed. Made by an SPA, has promotional aspects, but could also be a fair draft on a notable person.  Systematic biases make it hard with Nigerian topics.
 * Agree that the IP blankings and db-userreqs can be reasonably accepted as by the author.
 * Concern of mirror copies is better addressed by blanking, which causes the copies to blank. I suggest blanking it now, and deleting after the standard 7-56 days of MfD discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try that as an experiment.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great idea since this girl has such a unique name their is no noise in the results. I'm now somewhat convinced she is a real but totally non-notable (in WP speak) student who likely does not want all this info (some of it negative) out there for people to find when they google her unique name. If she is real it is an unsourced BLP and if in mainspace could be PROD'd.


 * Mirrors at ,
 * , Content still there 02:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (already mirrors the blanking),
 * (mirrors a what links here page)
 * and includes links to this page and related pages
 * includes link to page on side

So it looks like we delete/blank etc out of wikivisually. Only a full deletion would remove the page name and link for the pages that collect Wikilinks. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Look, even assuming anything is true, blanking is fine and all but there's enough BLP concerns to worry me. If this was a personal biography on the editor's own userspace, we would consider blanking or deleting it in line with WP:YOUNG and I don't see where keeping it around, even if blanked, should be a possible solution. If someone wants to write a real article on the topic, they would have take serious care about having reliable sources and it's better to WP:TNT this draft than keep it around, even if blanked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanking for a week of experimenting, it seems to work. After that, delete yes, the content is not suitable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.