Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubana Chief Priest


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Cubana Chief Priest

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An article that doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. It is also good saving that "celebrities may be famous but not notable meeting WP:BASIC." Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Entertainment, Africa,  and Nigeria. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Reliable coverage about an arrest, the rest are trivial coverage; sources 3 and 5 are point form lists or trivia items about this individual. I suppose he could a notable businessman, but the sourcing doesn't support notability. Doesn't pass criminal notability, I'm not sure what else is left for notability from these sources. I don't find anything extra we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He was arrested for throwing money in the air, which isn't notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and per User:Oaktree b. This subject fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 05:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm the original creator of the article. I understand that it was moved to the main space and subsequently nominated for deletion due to concerns about unreliable sources and notability. After reevaluating the content, I agree that the article relies heavily on unverifiable sources and fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Therefore, I support the deletion of the article in its current form. I believe it's essential to prioritize accuracy and credibility in our content, and I'm willing to work on improving the article if feasible. However, in its current state, I think deletion is the best course of action. 2RDD (talk) 9:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it appears your response was generated by AI. Did you want to add any comments personally (humanly)? JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which AI? I think the article should be deleted. 2RDD (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * Delete per the submission of @SafariScribe (Chat With Term)talk 13:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.