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) — Yash ^talk stalk 00:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Nawgu[edit]

Eddie Nawgu (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)

This is an interesting topic-area that I would want to keep. But I'm afraid I am unconvinced that the references that exist demonstrates that it meets our notability guidelines for persons. StellaDimokoKorkus.com and many other sources that speaks about him aren't reliable sources. Most of the other references in the article are centered on Bakassi Boys, not Eddy. The Academia paper looks promising but I'm not sure its sufficient. If significant coverage can't be found, I suggest the article is merged with Bakassi Boys, since this was one of their many popular cases or its Deleted. Darreg (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep I humbly wish that the Administrator or any contributor to this discussion takes an overall look at the article before taking action. This article is developed with proper referencing and proper citations abiding by all Wikipedia polices and rules, if after your observation of the article you believe the article is not worthy to stay, then please by all means vote whatever you feel is best, I am merely a contributor to knowledge and nothing more.

Now, if the issue or problem some persons may have concerning this article is subjects significance or notability then the 11th refrence provided duly covers that area accurately.

further more Everyone is invited to click on this Research for more indepth understanding of subject

Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as noted by Darreg. Some of the sources in the article are not reliable. The reliable sources in the article centers on the Bakassi Boys. A search of the subject on Google doesn't show the subject being independently discussed outside of the Bskassi Boys. I think a section about the subject can be included in the Bakassi Boys article, with some of the content from this article being built in.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • do understand this sir, as I stated in the article , his name or rather spelling of his name varied. for example "Prophet Eddy Nawgu" "Prohet Eddy Na Nawgu" "Prophet Eddie Nawgu" "Prophet Eddy N'ogu" when searched on google would give you various topics and results which differ from the other depending on the name entered by user, but all is about the same person : "Prophet Eddie Nawgu"

• • • • • Different Dialects from the igbo tribe in Nigeria may have caused this complication. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. On a second look, I noticed that the articles created by Celestina007 are not backed by inline sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • Hello, that is quite incorrect sir, and the history button is there to prove your above statement wrong. My article on "Charles Awurum" was the only article of mine lacking inline citations of which as of now it has been improved.
        • Even when it did lack inline citations, it was properly referenced.
        • As regards my current article on Eddie Nawgu It clearly passes Wp:gng because; it has significant coverage, sources are reliable, and sources are secondary and independent of subject. If diligently you have gone through all references surely you would agree it clearly passes. Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - the individual in question is the subject of various Nigerian news articles and an academic research paper published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (Johannes, Harnischfeger,. "State Decline and the Return of Occult Powers: The Case of Prophet Eddy in Nigeria". Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 1). The article needs work, but the individual in question is clearly notable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Can you please provide us with the "various Nigerian news articles" you speak of? The few reliable sources in the article do not discuss the subject independently and in detail. The sources are centered around the Bakassi Boys, with the subject receiving trivial mentions. One reliable reviewed journal is not enough to establish notability.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: an article not conforming to all the rules of wp:gng does not necessarily translate to its exclusion from Wikipedia. This article even conforms to all the criteria, it has reliable sources , it is independent of subject , it has been used as case study for a project by non-Nigerians what else do we really need to establish notability of subject? Article is properly written by me and has suffient references, I believe article should Stand alone. Please let us work together and Close up the information gap, information should be accessible to all Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and Versace1608. Domdeparis (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is more than one scholarly paper discussing Nawgu as a notable person in his field, which means it meets WP:GNG. Ijon (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, can't deeplink to S3. Here's a Google Scholar query (note the variant spelling) where the second result is another relevant scholarly paper. Ijon (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Echoing Midnightblueowl, it seems clear that Eddie Nawgu has a specific and important history for/in Nigeria. Arguably, the notability of the Bakassi Boys is also based - to some extent - on the notability of Nawgu. Ijon points out some of the academic articles that reference Nawgu and his importance in an overall socio-cultural history of Nigeria.

The additional reasoning I'd offer to my Keep (which makes it a Strong Keep for me), is that I believe we cannot expect the same numbers of academic and other references for an article on Nigerian history than, for say, Western European or United States history. This is not a reflection on Wikipedia, but unfortunately a much deeper structural issue around the nature and reach of academic and other publishing; we must acknowledge that this continues to be primarily centered around Europe and North America. So even as I have sympathy for - and give thanks to - all Wikipedian patrollers who make sure that articles are to a reliable, verifiable standard, I think we must understand the broader dynamics at play.

It seems to me that while the article could do with some additional work, the main editor has, in all good faith, done their best to conform to Wikipedia rules, and to establish notability as best they can. It is now up to us to recognise that this _is an article that deserves to be on enWP, because of its significance in the Nigerian canon. As a reminder to us all, Nigeria has a population of over 190 million, making it the 7th most populated country in the world. We should be encouraging more articles about and from Nigeria, while supporting editors to conform to enWP standards. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for the reasons mentioned by Anasuyas. I also find it perplexing that this article's sources should be scrutinised so intensely given how most stub quality articles are not. I would also like to echo Celestina007 point that "not conforming to all the rules of wp:gng does not necessarily translate to its exclusion from Wikipedia." This covers a range of article types from small towns/local land marks to broader topics from countries which might not have the range or depth of easily accessible written or digital references other parts of the world might have. It feels as though this deletion request is made without any recognition of the articles context.--Discott (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I mean right off "State Decline and the Return of Occult Powers: The Case of Prophet Eddy in Nigeria" is a long article by a scholar that heavily engages the subject. That's moving into WP:GNG territory right there, and we have a lot of bio articles where I wish we had such a source. And there are bunch of other sources in the article. And Anasuyas's point is well taken, that "we cannot expect the same numbers of academic and other references for an article on Nigerian history than, for say, Western European or United States history" and we have to give a little leeway here, else our encyclopedia becomes overly focused on subjects we can easily get refs for -- people and things in America, Britain, etc. Granted article needs some work but I've seen worse cases. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Midnightblueowl and others above. These are great sources for a stub, especially given the context of available written Nigerian history. Clearly room to improve the article, but also clearly notable so let's just improve it. Siko (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which of the criteria in ANYBIO does he fulfill? Domdeparis (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - for all the reasons cited by Midnightblueowl and Anasuyas above. The lack of references that are seen as "citable" in the developing world means that so many people who are perceived as being notable to huge populations might not pass many Wikipedians' personal citations criteria. This doesn't mean that the person is any less notable, but that the structures to reassure Wikipedia that he is notable are not flexible enough to encompass this kind of issue. As the nominator Darreg said, this is an interesting topic-area. Please keep. Isla Haddow (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It spells out something of interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:40, 3 March 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.