Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prinye Jaja

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. North America1000 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinye Jaja (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)

I declined an A7 request because based on what I can find on GNews ([1] [2]), I cannot rule out her being significant or important enough to pass A7, like due to her association with MC Galaxy, especially considering that Nigerian sources are likely harder to find for Westeners like myself.

However, I did look for sources and except the two I mentioned, I could not find any, so she fails WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I briefly considered merging to Jaja of Opobo but I did not see the point since the connection is weak at best. Regards SoWhy 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per norm. She fails WP:NARTIST and WP:BASIC. Merging with Jaja of Opobo is not advised, apart from mention from [3] about being related to Jaja of Okpobo there's nothing or any source from GBOOKS dating back to time of Jaja that can also support that, usually in cases like this i use GBOOKS and there should be a few mentions but nothing of such in this case. Edidiong (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  09:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  13:22, 22 June 2018 (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.