Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Lubala


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Elijah Lubala

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Non notable businessman. The article is more of an advert for this products than a bio. None of the references listed mention him Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldnt find any source mentioning him, apart from usual twitter profiles and his linked-in account. The same is for his premier product he apparently invented, the "ELIE MiFi Solar Lantern". His company "Elie Technologies" exists, but has no coverage anywhere too. He fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO pretty obviously. The article has been created by a user called User:Febuaryco. Said user has created an article about an artist called Febuary (artist), which is also up for deletion in AFD. The manager of this artist is .... Elijah Lubala (according to this). So guess WP:PROMO applies here. Dead Mary (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -Not notable, no sources found.ABF99 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and Salt because this is yet another attempt at clear self-advertising since this was deleted once before as it is, nearly immediately after this current article; the article goes to specifications only either his own website or job listing would care to mention. There is nothing at all close to substance here, and the fact the only sources listed are his own websites and otherwise unconvincing, explain this also. If no one could first at least either see how articles actually work or at least consider using Draft instead of actuslly starting yet another advertisement, it suggests the PR is eminently persistent. SwisterTwister   talk  02:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page lacking in RS. Salt is a good suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 September 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.