Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success Akpojotor

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Success Akpojotor

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

The subject is an author of multiple books but coverage is basically non-existent. The two sources currently in the article are blog posts and while 76crimes claims that Maurice Tomlinson is their writer, that alone is not enough for this source to establish any kind of significance. Searches on GNews or GBooks come up empty other than that and a generic Google search turns up no reliable source coverage either. Fails WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much improved since nomination. Daask (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An extensive search turned up little-to-nothing to indicate notability under GNG, AUTHOR, or any other guidelines. Most of the books and refs appear to be self-published on essentially open access platforms. The strongest support is that the author/work has been discussed on the blog of a notable gay rights activist, but that falls well short of our GNG or author guidelines for substantial independent secondary reliable source coverage. Alsee (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here from here and think that if this article is as stated "Much improved since nomination", then there is little hope for the topic because the article is not good and the references/links are not reliable. I mean yes it has been reviewed, but when the guideline says to find reviews, it clearly means reviews from major publications and not reviews from blogs. Also this is a forum post. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article may have numerous references but none contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 27 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.