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 Keep. Article has substantially changed during the course of the AfD, consensus on the revised version is Keep. (Non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 18:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Oyakhilome[edit]

Chris Oyakhilome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "biography" has negligable independent sources to verify notability, breaches just about every rule in the book when it comes to reliable sources (including using enwiki as a footnote reference!), and does not demonstrate why this subject, or the article in its current state, merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Nominated version)

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria|list of Nigeria-related deletion discussion--Scarletharlot69 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)--Scarletharlot69 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)s]]. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete not notable at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's getting quite a coverage in the African press[1][2][3], isn't he? Ankimai (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Oyakhilome is a very well known Nigerian televangelist. I don't see anything in criteria for notability that makes this person not notable. He's written about in books, in magazines, in newspapers. He's studied by scholars. I saw him mentioned on an American tv show recently. How is this not notable? I don't get it. --ConcealMyIPAddress (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the notability link above, and there is no way this guy fails notability. But it seems the notability link and editing is meaningless, when someone just pronounces he's not notable without any proof. There are newspapers, books, articles on scholar. In English, French, and other languages. But someone said "he's not notable," and that's all that matters. Editing articles is a poor second to discussing articles and tagging articles, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcealMyIPAddress (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The articles referred to by Ankimai appear to be about the article subject and his ministry and his scandals and the government's crusade against him and go into enough depth that he passes WP:GNG handily from those alone. I suspect, though, that most of the reliably sourced third-party notice of him is in print, as the African press is still largely offline. These articles certainly assume that the reader is familiar with him, in the same way that an American article on Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell would. --NellieBly (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe incorporate into article on 'Christ Embassy'. Have just bumped into one of their Brothers here in Leeds, England. And I wanted to know something about them...

• Keep Tell me again why this was nominated? If it had been about a US televangeleist there would be no question of deleting. Almost anybody appearing on US TV gets an article here, no matter how useless and pathetic a human being they are, merely by having been on TV. As for the Wikipedia self-ref, that is a simple and understandable newbie mistake, it is not in any way an argument for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:31, 24 April 2011 (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.