Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimele Usuwa Abengowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The Delete views carry significantly more P&G weight than the Keep ones, resulting in a rough consensus. Owen× 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimele Usuwa Abengowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, the content on ref 1 which is a magazine can't be verified by any reliable source same as ref 5. Ref 2 and ref 5 are also the same link on the article current state. The only source here was this which just only talk about his death. Ref 7 which is a YouTube video showcasing a church service cant be use as a source neither any YouTube link can be use as a source. Ref 3 which just only mentioned his name as part of the medical list and not like he was talked about. Subject just totally fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again for marking another article of mine for deletion. After the last episode, you should have recused yourself from my articles and leave other editors to go through and arrive at their own conclusions. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject satisfies notability guidelines as have been severally outlined above. Cfaso2000 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source ain't enough to justify notability. Other editors needs to be aware ‘Cfaso2000’ was the article creator. Gabriel (……?) 11:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a disagreement over the quality of sourcing. A source assessment at this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me he has distinguished service. Notable award too methinks.Unfortunate coverage isn’t wider. 102.91.4.54 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have just created an account to vote a keep. All this keep from newbies are now just suspicious. Gabriel (……?) 18:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been here for 12 yrs. 102.91.4.54 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject meet WP:Notable and there are enough references to back it up Tesleemah (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources provided are not enough to meet WP:GNG. VisionAfrica seems to be the most in-depth, but I could not verify its reliability - it's not listed on the RS Noticeboard. There's no WP:SIGCOV to justify an article at this time.DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't just make claims, @Tesleemah. You may need to present the sources you're speaking of. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SOURCE ANALYSIS:
    1. Vision Africa is an unreliable source per WP:NGRS.  Fail
    2. gazettes.africa is an archive of the government gazettes of African countries, hence, it's reliable and correctly defined the content.  Pass
    3. I will conder BLERF as reliable because it's been published by Nyaknno Osso, but it lacks indepth coverage and it's a listing of primary generated information. In other words, a database cannot be used as a source.  Fail
    4. It lists medical practitioners registered in Nigeria, but it wasn't independent of Jim, and doesn't show his career. It was only a list.  Fail
    5.Same as source 1
    6. same as source 3
    7. Without having doubts, and although Independent Newspaper (Nigeria) is reliable, the article reads like a paid publication. It's a coverage and statements by the organization who made a statue/thereabout for him. Fail
    8. YouTube is unreliable and the source (username that it was gotten from) of the video is very very unreliable  Fail
    Final analysis: being awarded an award may meet WP:ANYBIO. However, all these SNGs are ways to know that there may exist likely coverage about the person. Here, there is no coverage (significant) of this individual. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribeThanks for your source analysis. I have concerns regarding No 7 analysis. Your statement "the organization who made a statue/thereabout for him" appears to attribute the statue to the organization mentioned in the article. This is not the case based on my reading of the article again. Nowhere in the Independent Newspaper(Nigeria) article was it mentioned that the organization created a statue for him, and I haven't found that in any other sources analysed above. The organization mentioned in this article immortalized him by naming their lecture/conference series after the subject. Regarding being a paid publication, I'm not sure about that. The subject was resting on his deathbed and an organization "probably sponsored" news articles about him, or another probability is "they attracted news attention" to his death. I really can't vouch for any organization regarding how news content emanated. But I would give the benefit of doubt, given that the subject was deceased, and being a prominent person, would attract some coverage. Whether the coverage is facilitated or not is uncertain. I don't think this source should be considered as having failed. Cfaso2000 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cfaso2000, about source 7, see WP:PRSOURCE. Best, Reading Beans 08:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.