Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ejefoh (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ejefoh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anthony Ejefoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - As the author of the article, I apologize. I didn't realize that there was a bio that was deleted previously. It looks like, at that time, he had not received substantial press coverage. However Anthony Ejefoh is notable and he has reliable sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonmabe (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Where are these alleged sources showing significant coverage? The sources cited all look like press releases and none of them have named authors? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article shouldn't be deleted because he is quite popular and has good media coverage. There is enough significant news coverage. Sources 3, 4, 5 and 8 qualify as significant independent coverage from reliable sources that passes GNG. Jimjam101 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - According to User User:Spiderone He Said "The sources cited all look like press releases and none of them have named authors?" but after going through the article and sources i found out something. one of them which is from The_Sun_(Nigeria) have an author[1] Secondly after going more deeper I found out they are not tagged Sponsored / paid. Leadership_(newspaper)[2] , This_Day[3], Nigerian_Tribune[4], The_Nation_(Nigeria)[5], The_Guardian_(Nigeria)[6] all these are reliable sources. I think it should be tag as a stub or moved to draft.Theholyground (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ sunnewsonline
  2. ^ https://leadership.ng/tech-world-ejefoh-africa-biggest-digital-entrepreneur/
  3. ^ https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/11/25/anthony-ejefoh-founder-of-bstock01-has-developed-a-distinct-media-system-for-aware-thought-leaders/
  4. ^ https://tribuneonlineng.com/africa-fastest-growing-business-owner-anthony-ejefoh-bstock01-media-owner/
  5. ^ https://thenationonlineng.net/how-to-begin-a-thriving-company-in-2021-by-anthony-ejefoh/
  6. ^ https://guardian.ng/art/anthony-ejefoh-author-of-my-blogging-companion/
  • Delete - all the references are dreadful. The Sun is not a reliable source and every single one of them is a thinly-veiled press release. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping - pinging previous AfD discussion participants out of courtesy to see if their opinion has changed 6 months later @DGG:, @Celestina007:, @Spicy:, @Mccapra: and @Subwaymuncher: Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — yet another ADMASQ, created by a sleeper account. All tale signs of UPE present coupled with meat-puppetry and the most imperative problem being the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This is definitely not mainspace worthy, not now, or anytime soon. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not draftify. The six sources provided by Theholyground are no use to us because they aren’t in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. They are interviews and puff pieces and absolutely don’t establish notability in Wikipedia terms. The subject may be notable at a future date but unless there are superior sources nobody has come across yet, there is no basis for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Independently published" does not count for an author. Reviews of such books can safely be assumed to be promotionalism , -- and even good newspapers published promotionalism . We don't. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Ejefoh_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1037561808"