Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ikeobi Ekwevi


 * 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 speedy delete. Deleted per G5 - I've just blocked the author as a CU-confirmed sock. Girth Summit  (blether) 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)  Girth Summit  (blether)  07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Ikeobi Ekwevi

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

Reviewed the sources provided and I don't see enough external coverage of this subject to meet WP:GNG at this time. One local news item turned up in a Google search (along with a press release just come out today announcing he's signed with a talent agency). The local recognition doesn't seem to reach the bar of notability at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please review the guidelines. Subject meets all notability qualifications and subject passes all 1-14 reasons for deletion. Uninvolved moderators usually do their due diligence. Thank you for your considerations.
 * General notability guideline
 * Shortcuts
 * WP:GNG
 * WP:SIGCOV
 * A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
 * Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
 * "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
 * 1.Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * 2.Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * 3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * 4.Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
 * 5.Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * 6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
 * 7.Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
 * 9.Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * 10.Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * 11.Categories representing overcategorization
 * 12.Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
 * 13.Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * 14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia 2601:5C5:201:CB80:ED94:17F:37D4:DB25 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've removed the worst of the sources (Tumblr and Blogspot, for example. See WP:RSP). Then I removed the sources that didn't even mention him, which were at least three of them. What's left is paltry. The Curb Consulting Ventures, ng-check.com, and nigeria24.me sources are all routine company listings, which are examples of trivial coverage (see WP:CORPDEPTH). That leaves the Africa: Journal source, but it's behind a paywall so I cannot access it; and an interview in The Burg, which is therefore not independent. Basically, what's left is a CV for LinkedIn, not WP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like edits are being made! 2601:5C5:201:CB80:10A0:EC23:FA39:BA6C (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, please be aware the above !vote is from an SPA. Likely a sock. —Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (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.