Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobby Kyei

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 deleted as G5 (procedural closure). (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kobby Kyei[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)

Article hasn't been improved since notability tag was added. Regardless, the subject is not notable. The writeup is blatant PR. The content on the page has been linked to other notable topics but that doesn't render the subject notable. The sources used are equally problematic and don't carry weight in this context. sandiooses^TextMe 23:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you elaborate on how the sources are "problematic"? I don't recognize any of the news outlets, but I'm not sure that makes them unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2018 (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.