Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Etim


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Etim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another promotional bio for Elim. Has all the flaws of the version at Emmanuel Ishie Etim deleted through Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Ishie Etim. Pinging contributors from previous discussion -, , , ,. Cabayi (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mm. this isn't quite the same as the previous page. And I think that at least some of those of us !voting last time were calling it a Procedural delete since similar draft exists. I've not yet come to a conclusion as to whether the subject is notable. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promotional article lacking sufficient non-trivial, in-depth support. red dogsix (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional article of non notable person. What makes it different from the one deleted in previous AfD is the huge unsourced and improperly sourced content this one contains. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete an even worse article than the one that was deleted. No sign of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Page creator here. Is there anyone interested in offering editing help on the page to make it pass muster?Igwatala (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Friend, the issue we're discussing here is not about whether the page will pass muster if it was to be improved, but whether the subject is deemed to be notable. If you could improve the page to satisfy the AfD, then that should be good enough.  See WP:BIO. Other editors are here saying that the person discussed in the page is not notable, and not that the page is needing improvement. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (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.