Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem Ogus (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Ogus

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

Subject has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source in the article is the Vangard source. The rest of the sources are self published blog sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone. The Page Clem Ogus is doing quite well and with time it will introduce more sources as it has gather some reference from Vanguard Newspaper site, Nairaland, View Nigeria and even one of Nigeria most influential blogger Ladun Liadi. More Reliable source will be introduce on the article as times go on.. versace1608 Kindly hold on a consideration on this page please. as we work to get more reliable source to it as suggested by you.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wasn't notable first time around and clearly still not notable now. Jack1956 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion had been appended under the previous discussion. I have split it off from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem Ogus to keep the old and the current discussions separate. No opinion on the article itself. Huon (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - wasn't notable first time, but it's getting notability already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.67.165 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: WP:CRYSTAL. Tigraan (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It has been the subject of multiple independent Reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.67.169 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming is a thing, proving is another... Tigraan (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it count if the same person votes twice (or even thrice?) using an anon IP from the same place? Jack1956 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We reach consensus here and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG I could be wrong, but I think using multiple IP addresses via VIP would constitute sockpuppetry if Wikipedia were a democracy. In the end the vote doesn't matter, because consensus. - Psychotic Spartan 123 08:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and write a sternly worded warning to 41.203.67.xxx about sockpuppetry and multiple votes. Notice however, than two !votes coming from that IP range may be two different people at the same workplace, for instance. Tigraan (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I can't find any evidence of WP:N. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:53, 31 March 2015 (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.