Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaw Ansong Jr.

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 redirect to LoveRealm. That said, the target needs a closer look. — The Earwig (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Ansong Jr.[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)

Two sources were of his own website. He doesn't have much on him apart from founding his company. But notability can not be inherited. Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Looking through at all the search results (only nine pages; filtered), there are not enough wp:reliable sources so that there are enough combined coverage to satisfy wp:basic. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 06:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also fine with a redirect to LoveRealm instead. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to LoveRealm: Change my main !vote to a redirect instead since non-deletion should be preferred over deletion per WP:ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 18:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aseleste . Redirect seems a rational move. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seem pretty clear here. MarginalCost (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not enough reliable sources and available content for a standalone article at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect very little notability but a redirect makes senseLesscynical (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It is a small developer with a beta product, with no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. It is a brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 22 March 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.