Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Weyi (3rd 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. I see no policy-grounded support for Keeping this article and consensus here is to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Weyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is a procedural nomination based on my evaluation of the sources used in the article. Based on my evaluation, this subject does not meet the general, politician, or any biography requirements for inclusion. This article has been nominated twice before, with one discussion resulting in a "delete" decision, and the other resulting in a "no consensus" decision.

Here's my evaluation of sources used in this article:

Acceptable sources: These would be solid sources that meet the requirements to be used to verify notability: I found none that met this.

Iffy sources: Weyi, 2016 Congo Candidate, Projects Hope In Land Of Vast Crises - Opinion piece in Black Star News. Unsure if this could be used to establish notability, since about half the article is about recent elections problems in the DRC, and the latter half sounds like marketing speak rather than a neutral evaluation of the article subject.

Poor sources

These do not meet the reliability requirements for use in establishing notability.

LA Times, March 16, 2016 - Only about 1/5 of the article is written by a third party. The remainder is Q&A by the article subject. This article cannot be used to establish notability.
Africa Agenda, September 22, 2015 (archive as the original doesn't exist) - This organization was formed in Colorado, where the subject has lived for years, so there may be a connection between the subject and the organization. Additionally, this is mostly an interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
Yessoufou, Moutiou (April 18, 2015). "Emmanuel Weyi on 'African Roots'" (permalink to that episode) - This is an interview (it's scattered throughout the latter part of this episode, the biggest part seems to be around 1:42:00 into it). It's mostly the subject talking with occasional prompts from the host. Cannot be used to establish notability.
'ICOSA Netwok, February 6, 2015 - Another interview/talk show. Cannot be used to establish notability.
"The complete and total embargo of artisanal Congolese minerals." (PDF) SEC. Commentary by Chuck Blakeman and Emmanuel Weyi" - The page is inaccessible, but based on the description in the footnote here (on Wikipedia), this is commentary by the article subject, which therefore cannot be used to establish notability.
Letter of invitation to "a congress of the opposition coalition", February 9, 2011 - Cannot be used to establish notability.
Amnesty International, September 14, 2016 - This is a regurgitation (pretty much word-for-word) of this press release dated the same day. Press releases cannot be used to establish notability. Additionally, the subject is not mentioned at all.
AP, January 6, 2019 - The subject is not mentioned at all, so can't be used to establish notability.

Unknown

I wasn't able to view this source, so I cannot make a judgment on whether it could or could not be used to establish notability. Based on the title of the article, I suspect not.

Nakaso, Dan (February 6, 2015). "Mining Interests. Connect &Collaborate, ICOSA Network". Radio.

Let the discussion begin! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. Per WP:NPOL, just being a politician does not, in and of itself, provide notability. The article subject must meet WP:GNG. This article fails as there are insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very good analysis by the nom. If he had a bit more coverage, maybe he would meet WP:BASIC.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! There is no basis to delete the page. He was featured in the LA Times and was on TV news broadcasts. There are far less known individuals with Wikipedia pages. Why is there such a concerted effort to close this page? Maybe this is a smear campaign riddled with racism and harassment against an African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.239.14.120 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @197.239.14.120: Please remain civil in your comments, and please don't throw around baseless accusations regarding the nomination. I clearly spelled out why I think this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and specifically addressed each source used in the article. Feel free to explain why you think I'm incorrect on any specific one of those, but do not make personal attacks by accusing me of racism and harassment. Until I'd reviewed this article, I'd never heard of this person, and (as mentioned in my statement above) this is a procedural nomination, not one motivated by anything else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems like a powder keg after that last comment. I did go through the article history and I found the URL for the source @Nihonjoe was unable to verify. It's a recite of #4 in the "Poor sources" list. I found other interviews as well: HiberRadio and this one on SoundCloud. I have not listened to either one to determine if there is information available in them that would affect determination of WP:NPOL. I also found an opinion piece on Medium (yes, non RS, I know) that is rather unforgiving of the fact he has an article on Wikipedia at all - which is one reason why I'm leery of stepping into this minefield. I don't actually want to link it because it provides personal location information as well as a copy of a CO state DL for subject. (Which apparently Google will only let the person whose DL it is report it as doxxing?) This CO business listing is troubling. I'm finding a pattern on dissolved businesses once belonging to the article's subject, but it's all moot as it's all WP:OR anyway - no media outlet coverage of the issue. Regarding the claim in the history of the article that he founded Colorado Sickle Cell, I'm not finding any mention of article subject on the Wayback of the defunct page. The URL in the history of the article has been usurped, and the alternative found via Google is dead. There is an active GoDaddy URL that doesn't list the article subject in either the Board Members or About pages. And it was established in 1974, 10 years before subject came to U.S. according to the version of the article that claimed he founded it. Of course, the other reason I don't want to step into this minefield is the probable WP:No personal attacks violation in that unsigned comment above.

Delete - Having said all of the above, the reasons provided by @Nihonjoe regarding WP:Reliability show ample policy reasons to remove the article. If there is coverage of article subject other than the named sources by media outlets, I did not find it, and one mention in a single paragraph in a book titled Global Human Rights does not appear sufficient to me to counter the well-reasoned argument for removal. OIM20 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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.