Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebs Akintade

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebs Akintade[edit]

[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)

A grossly undersourced BLP (refs are IMDb and a BBC programme information page) with promo issues – appears to be an autobiography. I can't find anything that would establish that he meets NBIO. Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, not sure why this is being considered for deletion. I am a British broadcaster and presenter. Is it factually incorrect? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuaki (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: confirmed WP:AUTOBIO with most the article being original research. Pulisi (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is this from a tabloid but I doubt it's enough on its own Spiderone 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, funnily enough thats not been mentioned or cited in the article till now when I added it, controversial content is better than unverifiable original research. Pulisi (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how that doesn't even get a passing mention when it's actually the only think that he seems to be known for. Spiderone 13:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC and none of his roles make him inherently notable enough for an article Spiderone 13:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See this diff for when he removed a deletion template before, stating This page should not be deleted please as a reason. Since then no refs have been added except one mentioned above and all that was added was original reseach liekly in an attempt to establish notability (but without sources).Pulisi (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a run of the mill reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a cool guy to have a drink with and chat about shit. I'm sure he has some stories that would be fun to hear. Not notable enough to pass GNG and be included. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google hits are predominantly in websites/sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a minor local radio reporter. 107.8 Radio Jackie is a fine radio station but its news team largely consists of students and trainees, not a particularly notable role, and if we had an article for every BBC local radio guest we would be here for decades. In addition, it looks like the guy has written most of the article himself. CallLetters (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)≥[reply]
Delete it seems he isn't a notable radio reporter and just a locally. Also there isn't enough in-depth reliable sources. Fatzaof (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:33, 12 January 2021 (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.