Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obasi Igwe

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. ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obasi Igwe

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The citation level is not really all that good for political science. He is a respectable working political scientist, but nothing suggests that he has reached the level of significant impact in the field that the notability guidelines for academics require, and nothing else in his work suggests notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Sufficient in depth coverage to sustain article. gidonb (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mentioned only peripherally in the one newspaper story used as a reference, not good enough for WP:GNG. And while "Politics and Globe Dictionary" has quite a respectable number of publications (162 in Google scholar) we would need more than a single well-cited publication to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and weak claims on "respectable number of publications" under WP:PROF#C1 nor achieves any signification impact in the field he practices. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:53, 8 January 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.