Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajumogobia & Okeke (2nd nomination)

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. And salt. Sandstein 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajumogobia & Okeke

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

Delete This article was previously nominated for deletion on 3 September 2015 by editor Wikicology. The result of that discussion was to redirect to the senior partner Henry Odein Ajumogobia about whom there is significant coverage. Almost immediately after the "redirect" was made, an WP:SPA editor restored the article unchanged. It was again redirected. Now, an WP:SPA editor Lupin13noble has restored the article with four additional citations and the summary adding article with info and more references. Unfortunately there is still not significant coverage of this law firm and the article still fails to make a claim of notability. Of the four new references, three are just passing mentions (one line about sponsoring an event, one line about being one of six law firms that completed the final draft of the model Nigerian mortgage foreclosure law, and one noting Mr. Shasore, who is also a senior partner in a Lagos-based law firm, Ajumogobia & Okeke,) The fourth citation was to a review of oil & gas law firms in Nigeria by Law Business Research Ltd. (Who's Who Legal). It has two sentences about the firm: C Nonyelum Okeke at Ajumogobia & Okeke specialises in oil and gas law and is an “excellent” project finance lawyer. He is joined by Ovie Ukiri, a “true specialist” who is “highly rated” by peers and clients alike. That at least is in the direction of substantive coverage, and if it were combined with other substantive coverage could reach the level of significant coverage. But it stands out as the only substnative coverage of the firm. The other mentions at Who's Who Legal, uncited in the article, are about specific individuals and only mention the firm in passing. Undoubtedly the firm is a pretigious law firm in Nigeria, it just lacks coverage. All of the older citations were just directory or incidental listings, some incidental mentions of the law firm in passing were when discussing Henry Odein Ajumogobia. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG. I would ask anyone reviewing this nomination who is not familiar with the "Depth of coverage" section of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to review that section before commenting. While I still feel that a redirect is acceptable, I am asking for deletion to remove the platform for additional non-helpful revisions. --Bejnar (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I usually don't like giving spammers a chance, I described them as WP:MOSQUITOES. Nonetheless, since I was pinged on this, I say (1) Delete (2) Block WP:SPA editor (3) Salt page. Finally, "Ajumogobia & Okeke" should kindly be patient enough to wait until their law firm becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will writes about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Wikicology. --Rubbish computer 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - It's pretty frustrating how sometimes people play games with Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Like the above editors, I don't like taking these types of measures (in fact I think this is my first salt recommendation). However, it gets frustrating at times dealing with editors like this. I also agree with Wikicology that the SPA editor should be blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:33, 3 October 2015 (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.