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. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 00:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ihejiamaizu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No evidence of any notability. Plenty of self-promotional refs. US awards are non-notable. No independent and reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Err, could somebody explain which references from this article are supposed to be unreliable and why? The references regarding the U.S. State Department awards [1][2] seem to be both reliable and independent to me. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92, Err, Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the onus is on the article creator to explain what & what sources are reliable not on us. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting you: you are in fact wrong. You and the nominator are the ones arguing for deletion and claiming that some sources are unreliable and non-independent. You need to back up these claims, since you made them. Otherwise they are just unjustified assertions, carrying no weight. I repeat, what is the problem with independence and reliability of sources like [3][4]? Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources reference the US department of state alumni membership. According to this this is open to all "past and current participants of U.S. government-funded and U.S. government-facilitated exchange programs ....." - so not by any means exclusive or contributing in any way to notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

I am not saying it's a Nobel Prize or anything of the sort, but the U.S. State Department profile of the subject [5] is a reliable independent source providing specific and detailed coverage, and in this way it does contribute to notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Plus the phrase "is open to all past and present ..." refers to eligibility. They still conduct a selective process for choosing the recipients of these awards and don't simply pick them randomly. Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly, she is not notable as an academic, but she appears to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a social enterprenuer. There are multiple examples of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources, including two stories in The Guardian (Nigeria),[6],[7], at Premium Times[8], several other news stories in Nigerian news outlets [9][10][11], [12], a profile at the World Economic Forum[13], at the U.S. State Department [14], etc. Plenty enough to satify WP:GNG and WP:BIO here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar has 4 research papers from her, however they are not widely cited, so it doesn't meet the academic criteria, but as above voter stated she meets WP:GNG.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She is not notable for anything ,except, possibly, for self-promotion. I see no evidence in the article or the sources that she is in any sense notable as a social entrepreneur, even assuming that someone could become notable as a social entrepreneur, or that it's a meaningful designation. It's one of the red-flag terms -- when I see it on New Pages or as a draft, I assume it's non-encyclopedic promotionalism , unless proven otherwise. All of the awards are promotional or trivial, as would be expected. All of the press was either written either directly or indirectly by her pr staff. The original ed. was blocked for sockpuppettry; it's been cleaned up by a reliable editor, mainly by removing the worst of the references, but there's nothing encyclopedic actually there. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - author now blocked for socking.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with DGG; the subject appears not to be notable except for her undoubted abilities in self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DGG's analysis is sound. A promotional article with weak sourcing based on recycled press release/PR guff. Edwardx (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - well written but, ultimately, the notability isn't demonstrated from the sources Spiderone 21:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well written, and she seems to be doing very good work that helps people, but this does not make someone notable; none of the distinctions seem to bring her above GNG and giving a TEDx talk is, well, not exactly hard to arrange. jp×g 10:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had spent a fair bit of time cleaning this up when I came across it, and was minded to nominate it for deletion but thought it was borderline. If you strip away the interviews, what we are left with is an impressive young person who was selected for a US exchange programme and may be destined for great things, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. I see this as self-promotion, and likely the result of undeclared paid editing. (I don't agree with the nom's assertion that there are 'no independent and reliable sources' though.) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment interview in the guardian Nigeria. [[15]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the World Economic Forum indicating that she is part public-private network that is doing well in the 3rd sector. What that means is she has been active at a high level the 3rd sector, such that she has been noticed, outside her own country. Worth keeping for the moment. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: To unpack what it means to be 'a member of the World Economic Forum' take a look at the page about her on the WEF site and ignore the bio that she's no doubt written herself and focus on what the WEF say she is: a 'global shaper' from the Calabar Hub. The Global Shapers website explains that 'the Global Shapers Community is a non-profit organization registered in Geneva, Switzerland and housed at the World Economic Forum'. The WEF provides funding for its operations. However the key thing that the page tells us is that there are over 13,000 such global shapers - young people thinking globally but acting locally - so it is hardly an exclusive honour, and being a global shaper would not make someone notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Curb Safe Charmer: Yip, your right and good chunk of them are on here, with articles. Prior consensus has found that several of them, which I took to Afd or participated in, were notable, and I don't see any reason why this person is not notable either. I think there is perhaps a level of detail for want of a better word, that folk on here don't understand or perhaps don't experience. I don't have experience of either to be honest, so I had to do the work in the previous Afd's. Put simply, for somebody who is very young to achieve that level in the 3rd sector, sufficient to gain notice of an international organisation, entry into the WEF and then to achieve a Mandela fellowship, taking her from Nigeria to the US is sufficient to achieve notability. It is almost an entirely unique experience for one so young. There is probably couple of hundred folk in the world that achieve that level at that age, every year. scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 27 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.