Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekow Smith-Asante


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ekow Smith-Asante

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable actor with no multiple reliable secondary sources to attest to their notability. nearlyevil 665  20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no claim of notability made in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Subject in article does meet notability at least WP:BIO, unless all notable sources from Ghana should not be regarded as reliable sources, which would not sound right. The article demonstrates meeting the notability tag, but article needs to be improved. Subject from the basic research done is a notable actor in Ghana and West Africa. Ampimd (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, fails multiple reliable secondary, fails WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a review of reliable secondary sources and the subject passes. Missvain (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the following analysis Smith-Asante does not meet either NACTOR nor GNG. The reliability of some of the sources cited is shockingly poor and causes concerns not just for establishing notability per 42 but also verifying the article's content, especially given that it is a BLP.    SITH   (talk)   14:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the source analysis above (which, for the record, is excellently well-done). jp×g 21:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the source analysis above (which, for the record, is excellently well-done). jp×g 21:50, 9 May 2021 (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.