Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amala Ekpunobi

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. There aren't many convincing "keep" arguments: "YouTube channel with 952k subscribers" is irrelevant for notability, and the two sources offered have failed to convince others. Sandstein 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Ekpunobi

[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)

Non-notable individual, all coverage found is from social medial links. Perhaps too early in her career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the page on Amala should stay, and be developed.
Amala has a YouTube channel with 952k subscribers, and all of this has been done since January 2022. This is quite impressive, and I for one would like to know more about her background. 82.34.171.120 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I am the person who made the reply 20th March 2023 @ 17:55. or 83.34.171.120 Cobblars (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amala needs coverage in reliable sources, has she been featured in any magazines or newspapers? Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some stuff at:
https://www.studlife.com/forum/2023/03/08/sympathy-for-the-devil-amala-ekpunobi-and-the-free-speech-dilemma

https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/amala-ekpunobi-interview-prager-u/

And Google Books CT55555(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspapers aren't generally a very good source. Second one seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can buy subcribers, so youtube numbers aren't a good indicator. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree this is probably a case of "too soon". I don't see sufficient coverage from outlets independent of PragerU. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 6 April 2023 (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.