Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Uso Jr.


 * 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) 20:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Eta Uso Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sources cited are not about him in a significant way, except for the student magazine article. I am unable to find other sources where he is the main subject of the article.

Page was also previously deleted in 2016 under AfD as Articles for deletion/Eta Uso. ... disco spinster   talk  14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The author also created the deleted 2016 version and curiously they never edited anything else except to recreate the page this year. This is basically covert promotion weaved with a lot of weasel words, unreliable sources and questionable students magazine. No any independent claim of notability.– Ammarpad (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of enough reliable source media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but "subject of enough reliable source media coverage to clear GNG" is not what the sources here are demonstrating. There are nine footnotes here, but one of them is a reduplication of one of the others, so there are really only eight sources — but one just leads to an "access denied" lockout, leaving me unable to verify anything about it at all; two are directly affiliated primary sources published by his own alma mater, not independent coverage that would help to establish notability; two are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else, not coverage which has him as its subject; and three are bylined pieces of his own writing about other subjects, not coverage which has him as its subject. As always, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that he exists — he is not a notable journalist just because his own journalism metaverifies its own existence — but none of these sources establish that he's notable at all. There's also a likely conflict of interest of some sort, if the creator's only contributions to Wikipedia have been multiple attempts to make this article happen — there's no hard evidence as to whether the creator is Eta Uso himself or a friend or colleague or family member of his, but those would all still be conflicts of interest anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: There may be a wikipedia language area where he might be notable, but not english. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although this comment has already been struck, I just want to respond to it anyway so that the fallacy doesn't spread: Wikipedia does not judge notability based on the language of the sources. If a reference is to a genuinely reliable source, then it counts toward notability regardless of whether it's written in English, French, German, Urdu, Swahili or Farsi. The problem here is a lack of reliable or notability-supporting sources, not a lack of English-language footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Does meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, as a recreation of a page previously deleted at an AfD discussion. PUFF page with no proof of meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as well as being slightly promotional. William2001(talk) 17:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. There's not a single decent source, required per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (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.