Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phanuel Egejuru

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 speedy keep. Nom Withdrawal Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phanuel Egejuru

[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 falls short of the required SNG's to qualify for a biographical article, she is an author but doesn’t fulfill any criterion from WP:NAUTHOR, she has written appropriately three books in all & I can’t see any of her books been critically reviewed, all I’m able to find are cites that sell the book. She is also a professor yet again doesn’t satisfy any of the 8 criterions from WP:PROF. A before search shows she doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her, to in the very least satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found ten published reviews of four books by the subject, now in the article. (One of the four books is self-published but that's irrelevant: it's the reviews, not the publication itself, that count towards notability.) I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @David Eppstein, please could you provide the links to those sources that you claim you saw reviewed her books? It’s always helpful to add links in an AFD for ease of access, I would really appreciate to see those sources & confirm if or not they are even reliable sources to begin with. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the article. As I clearly just stated above. If you're too lazy to look at the article when commenting on an AfD for it, you shouldn't be commenting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added the shaky sources after I nominated this article for deletion & not prior so please do not comment as though those shaky sources were there before the nom. Furthermore please let us remain civil thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're all properly-published reviews in academic journals. Whatever possesses you to use the word "shaky" to describe them? Improvement of an article during an AfD is perfectly appropriate. And if we're going to talk about timing, may I remind you of WP:BEFORE, according to which the nominator should look beyond the article itself for better sources prior to making a nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, you tried to blatantly lie & act as though the sources were present before nomination, when I called you out on this, you switched gears. These days I’ve seen you cross the civility line multiple times with impunity, right now you have used words such as “Lazy” & statements such “what Possesses you”, & admins are supposed to be a held to a higher standard right? As an Admin, If you can’t present your rationale in an AFD without being condescending or walking the civility line, either you stop commenting at AFD’s or drop the mop either works best for the community. This is the very essence of an AFD, editors arguing out their rationale in a civil manner & reaching a consensus, that you try to belittle the process is a major concern to me & that you don’t understand this is a major problem. Celestina007 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. My statement said nothing about them being in the article before the nomination. In fact it said the opposite: my use of the word "now" implies that these sources were not in the article earlier. Your "blatantly lie" is a severe violation of WP:CIVIL and you need to retract it and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2020 (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.