Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Okoro

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Okoro

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per wikipedia notability guidelines, the subject is notable to some extent, and should be given more time for improvements. -- Is Nutin 05:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete I looked online and did not find anything suitable for estalishing notability. The references included in the article are certainly not able to do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete saw this line For more info visit ONYC Hair's website here. on the HuffPost source and I'm not convinced she meets WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject of the article fails to meetup with primary notability requirements such as WP:GNG Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 23:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic guideline WP:GNG Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this article just states that she exists, but doesn't offer any specific reason why her existence would be noteworthy for the purposes of an encyclopedia — and the references aren't cutting it under WP:GNG either, as two of them are purely promotional bloggery, one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself rather than being independently discussed by third parties, and the fourth is a piece in which she's the bylined author and not the subject. This is not how you source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two interviews (Huffington Post and Tribune Online) lack non-primary source coverage, and of the other two sources one is by the subject of the article - not independent - and the other looks promotional in a way that makes me think it's based on a press release (as does other news coverage I could find online). Peter James (talk) 21:18, 31 October 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.