Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekong Jimmy Effiong


 * 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ekong Jimmy Effiong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Jimmy Effiong Stats )

I just stumbled on this article and realized that it neither meets the notability or verifiability criteria. It subsequently fails the general notability criteria. None of the sources listed in the article describes the subject in anyway. A search for his name brings out nothing significant. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability and none of this suggests any better. Asking for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not delete as this person is notable in his own part of the world. That a subject is not popular on Google is not enough reason to yank it off Wikipedia. The article cites sources from local tabloids which do not have proactive internet activities. Thank crafts (talk) 21:10, 09 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although there isn't an explicit requirement that a certain subject has X amount of results on a Google search, a Google search is very useful in ascertaining the notability and coverage of a subject. Please see WP:BIO, WP:TEACHER, and WP:POLITICIAN to get an understanding of our notability guidelines. In particular, local politicians who may receive local coverage does not mean they are automatically notabile. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. @Thank crafts: Inasmuch as offline reliable sources in print are as useful as online sources when citing articles on Wikipedia, you will justify your reason for keeping this article by revealing any evidence of these sources. If he is really notable, then establish his notability by adding the sources in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: must qualify under WP:GNG, which does not appear to be the case. Quis separabit?  01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable enough as a politician [yet]. Uhooep (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - article creator should provide more sources including from Nigerian ones to prove notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: ... and failing those sources having already been demonstrated to exist, an article cannot be sustained, per WP:V and the GNG, especially since this is a BLP.   Ravenswing   05:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Sources, including in print, demonstrate notability AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Frank (User Page) (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Any Nigerian Wikipedian contributor is very much needed in this AFD discussion because I happen to be the only one besides the creator.
 * Other contributors: Please note that the article was initially not added to the Nigerian wikiproject since it's creation. The article is well written with many wiki links but on a closer scrutiny, the subject is not notable. It's deceptive in appearance. A search for his publications online is also a futile effort. Most Wikipedia articles solely sourced from printed works usually also have at least pieces of information on the Internet. This case shouldn't be an exception. The creator is yet to respond to my offline sources request. I deem it pertinent that things should be done the right way. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A further analysis of the stated references reveals that this source from Eagle newspaper is just a passing mention. The only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state's local newspaper: The Pioneer Newspaper which has its official website here. Notwithstanding, this should at least be verifiable via alternate means and it is not even manageable or sufficient to ascertain notability. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not know what you want exactly. According to the rules, I understand that availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability, yet “sources do not have to be available online or written in English.” In this case, am I supposed to personally get copies of the sources quoted in this article across to you for verifiability? How did you carry out your closer scrutiny without the sources? Where in the extant rules does it state that one of the sources must be online?
 * You have concluded that the only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state’s local newspaper – reason being that perhaps because it has a website. But could that be how editorial integrity is adjudged?
 * Note that the article here is not about a Nigerian national figure and you should not expect to see stories about him splashed all over the national dailies online. More so, not all stories printed in national dailies in Nigeria make the online version of the papers.
 * For the records, this figure is one of the three classroom teachers who rose from that position to being appointed a permanent secretary in Akwa Ibom state. He is also a winner of the Best Public Servant Award – the biggest award in the state of Akwa Ibom, Nigeria. That the award is not publicised online does not make it less notable. How I’m I supposed to get sources from local radio, tv and newspapers online to convince you if by merely quoting them you are not satisfied?
 * and Please note that this figure here is not a politician but a civil servant. Thank crafts (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the subject of the article fails WP:TEACHER and WP:GNG. His stated achievements on the article do not exceed his state (Akwa Ibom) which suggests that he is not known on a national level by most Nigerians. And the stated references are not even sufficient to cite the article. Verifiability is used to ensure veracity of articles on Wikipedia. The website of Pioneer magazine confirms the existence of the source; Unfortunately, it ends just there. Offline sources should have at least ways of verifying that they exist either through book index numbers or related websites and publications. That is not even the case with the remaining stated offline references. Eruditescholar (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete - Current sourcing does not meet notability guidelines, as with other editors, my searches turned up nothing, and without more sourcing from those who have off-line availability, no choice but to delete.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as evidently created with self-promotional intent, and little in the way of convincing sources.  Sandstein   17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of finding sources that meet WP:RS, when the article subject is in an area not as well covered by internet sites, nor major newspapers. If it were a close call, I might vote otherwise. However, it seems clear that the current local sources don't meet Wikipedia requirements. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Article needs serious work. But I was still leaning toward weak keep, as subject almost barely passed WP:BASIC, because of passing mentions in presumably reliable sources. But the heavy reliance on "The Story of Ekong Jimmy Effiong”, which appears to be nothing more than a profile in a blog, is inadequate; and his name does not even show up in a WorldCat search as an author on any of the publications listed in the article. So no notability can be reliably established by any standard. X4n6 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and above. Clubjustin (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2016 (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.