Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Uboh


 * 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. ansh 666 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

George Uboh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An very-negative BLP with possible paid/COI editing and no clear notability. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an article with a very colourful history: Originally this was a direct copy from the subject's personal website and flagged for deletion as copyvio. This was "remediated" by deleting the problematic contents from the subject's website and replacing it with a referrer to Wikipedia. The author of the article identified himself as paid publicist of the subject in the process - apparently with control over both the subject's personal website and attempts to influence Wikipedia. Despite a history of reminders about COI editing, the author kept introducing poorly sourced, fluffy contents about the subject, while omitting important facts. While the subject clearly has considerable media coverage in Nigerian media, I'm not entirely sure if those sources are reliable/unbiased as reporting seems to be either with a slightly negative or an overly positive slant (most of the relevant refs are linked in the article). The key claim for notability is the alleged uncovering of misppropriated funds. This may fall into WP:1E.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads as if it was meant to slander. The background appears to be cover for the allegations, and with questionable references. Also, the editor is not an active member of the community so the one contribution is an entry, and it is hard to argue, with sinister intent? This shouldn't be allowed.--JAMillerKC (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2018 (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.