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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chidera Okolie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Same notability issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidera Okolie, two years later. Possible COI. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete; the general lack of awards and connections that themselves have articles suggests that this BPL is, even two years later, still too soon. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 10:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page needs massive clean-up, but it is clear that she has received both awards and press. I made a start, but unfortunately in addition to the repetitive organization, the article creator had big problems with the citation templates and the source sites are unusually rife with pop-ups and in some cases are republishing others' words, so it will take a while to impose order on the article. But some of the references are under-used and appear to be reliable enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as she has won a number of awards and the article is being cleaned up and improvedAtlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep She is well known in Nigeria and though the creator did a near terrible job at his use of templates and irrelevant and duplicate references, the page had been improved. She has won a coupe of awards too. Some of the references, though bereft of international recognition, still prove she is exists as a Nigerian award winning author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.159.127.196 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

— 169.159.127.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. i do believe it is sock puppetry at work as they all sound alike and are of similar thought process.Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Yes, given that the article was authored, edited, and defended by a sockmaster, two sockpuppets, and a block evading IP address in the subject's country which is probably the sockmaster (Bbb23 may want to weigh in on that). I concur that the article: fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:INDEPTH; and is WP:TOOSOON.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Unfortunately, I don't know how Wikipedia works. I only come here to read articles but never thought of signing up. I was directed here when I tried to buy her book on Amazon by typing her name in on Google. My name is Chioma, I am Nigerian. I can tell you I am utterly surprised she has been included in a deletion page as the lady in question is a recognized author in Nigeria. She was even recognized by Guinness as one of the made of black heroines and has been endorsed by our ex president. Please do well to search her identity and profile on Google search. I think the references herein are not doing her justice and the creator of her page should kindly make the list longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiomaNika (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Keep My bad, I should have done my research properly before creating the page. I will heed to your suggestions and corrections. This however should not be a ground for delete. The idea is to recognize people carving niches and that is why I thought she deserved a page on Wiki. Yngvadottir Atlantic306 ChiomaNikathank you. All noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirabelIkwuebe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Strong delete as per what @JamesLucas said & article generally falls short of primary notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC & in her respect as an "Author" it/she fails woefully in WP:AUTHOR a case of WP:TOOSOON a policy very alien to new editors Celestina007 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: ChiomaNika is a  Confirmed sock of MirabelIkwuebe.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside the awards, I don not think the subject satisfies WP:GNG and I see this as a case of TOOSOON. The subject and her book have not been discussed in details on independent reliable sources per WP:INDEPTH.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The awards surely are a sign of notability? In any case, I suggest we should consider cutting some slack here for someone working in a country where there are fewer available online news sources than in, say, the US or Australia. We should be wary of possible bias. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir Your theory, although slightly plausible does not apply here, as this article is written in a time when information technology is readily available and when reliable sources are in excess on the internet for Nigerians who are truly notable, if you asked me to defend that which i just stated by providing articles on Nigerians which contain a decent amount of reliable sources; the list would be countless. There are even articles on notable Nigerians who lived before the country receiced thier independence (1960) and these articles are really sound and furnished with numerous reliable sources so what then is the excuse of an article or its subject for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources when it is being written in this modern time? it's a simple thing really, WP:TOOSOON is the problem here and furthermore let it not elude our thinking that this is a WP:BLP and we know how important it is to wikipedia, so lets be sure to follow polices and guidelines to the core, furthermore as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we need references and sources to work here and in the event the two aforementioned requisites are not presented it is just too soon for the subject to own a stand-alone article Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that; clearly we disagree about evaluating the sources. But I really don't think there's a BLP issue; the article is based entirely on the sources and contains nothing negative. Remember, the encyclopedia has plenty of room; including this writer does not mean we have to exclude anyone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement is plausible (i do not dispute that) then again it comes to mind that it took a sock puppet with 3 accounts to assemble this page. i know good Nigerian editors (including @Oluwa2Chainz that !voted a delete) that take note of notable Nigerians and create their BLP's, but rather it took sock puppets in this case. Tell me that doesnt tell you something? @Yngvadottir || Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't entirely follow your logic there. The page was created by MirabelIkwuebe; I see only two minor edits by ChiomaNika (and I put a lot of work into cleaning up the page; I would attribute most of its deficiencies to MirabelIkwuebe's being new). In any case, if they are the same person, how does it indicate difficulty of finding sources if they edited the article under more than one identity? I also think it was unduly harsh to strike out MirabelIkwuebe's !vote here as well as that of the sock. The problem with sock participation in discussions is giving the impression of multiple people sharing an opinion; she still has a right to express that opinion once. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep "Fiction Writer of the Year at the Nigerian Writers Awards" seems sufficient for the presumption of keeping the article, and [1] shows that isn't a hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I agree with you that reliable source exist for Nigerians who are truly notable in the last few years, but the key word is that she is a writer. Based on GNG alone, if she was an actress, singer, sportperson, footballer, etc. I would have voted delete easily. I'm certain there are not up to five Nigerian-based female writers on Wikipedia. The point I'm making is that even though internet resources are now prevalent in Nigeria, there is still in a knowledge gap when you consider the areas being covered, and writers and novelist is one of such. I am not saying we should go against policy but we can not overlook her awards and being listed as one of the prominent Nigerian writers. In addition to the sources in the article, I found the following that show that she is still being covered by reliable sources in 2017. 1, 2. Darreg (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: she exists, and is an award-winning Nigerian writer, thereby meeting the notability guidelines in WP:CREATIVE. The rest is a matter of improving the sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be well known in Nigeria, and recipient of various awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 4(a) of WP:NAUTHOR, and by extension to that, probably 4(a): if she 'has received awards including Fiction Writer of the Year at the Nigerian Writers Awards and twice being named one of the most influential Nigerian writers', then this suggests that she passes the requirement to have 'won significant critical attention.' — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:19, 27 May 2017 (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.