Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Osefo

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Osefo

[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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary sources independent of her hereby failing WP:GNG The article claims a lot of notability for its subject but doesn’t substantiate those claims with reliable sources. In the references provided most are broken links. Furthermore article is written as though it were a WP:PROMO & WP:LARD is strongly observed in this article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say what I find most disturbing is the heavy WP:PUFF in the article without provision of inline citations/references to substantiate claims of notability. Clicks on references that look promising all redirect to a dead/broken link. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the puffery has been removed. It still needs work but with the existing sources as well as coverage found in Google search, subject passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one @AuthorAuthor: , I saw your WP:C/E work on the article but a more pressing issue is that of reliable sources, could you please provide on this AFD the ones you can find that discusses subject of article with significant coverage and with in-depth. I have searched as per a WP:BEFORE but could not find any.Celestina007 (talk) 15:16 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Puff isn't a reason for delete, nor is clean-up. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: no WP:PUFF isn’t a reason to delete an article that’s why the reason I gave was that subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. I mentioned WP:PUFF as a secondary issue.Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you would have seen the significant coverage on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see much else that needs to be removed, although I'd like to see deeper coverage about her, which is not in the article yet. She writes for The Hill and has appeared on television, which would make her marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet the GNG and the promo issues seem o have been resolved. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:55, 28 November 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.