Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Esi Arku Amoah

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. T. Canens (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The prize is the prize for a season of a television show, and does not show notability . The other reference is an interview where she says whatever she might care to, and is therefore not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, mention of an award but outside that nothing to warrant a keep vote. WP:TOOSOON Lapablo (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of her only turns up info about her winning Season IV of the MTN-sponsored Heroes of Change show. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search prior to March 2018 shows sources reporting on the development of the orphanage. Enough discussion in RS to establish notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MurielMary: The article is about the subject, not the orphanage. If the orphanage has been discussed in reliable sources, then a stand-alone article can be created about it. The subject cannot inherit notability from the orphanage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the sources discuss the orphanage and Amoah's work building it; the sources about the orphanage are also sources about Amoah. MurielMary (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--plenty of third party references.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to be notable. More references can be added.Germcrow (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At most weak keep -- I suspect the founders of orphanages are not all that uncommon. RS is an important criterion, but I am dubious of her notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some discussion on how much the sources cover the subject vs. how much they cover the orphanage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time there is simply not enough significant coverage to substantiate an article. Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2019 (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.