Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin Maduka


 * 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Godwin Maduka

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Covert upe WP:ADMASQ on a non notable “businessman” and “Philanthropist” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This is a tough one as their is a mirage of notability, but allow me explain this to you, A before showed this but there is no byline, which is indicative of a guest editor and this which also indicative of a pr sponsored post both of which are reliable sources but very unreliable pieces. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is clearly written from a promotional standpoint and has some POV issues; notably, in the very first sentence, the claim of him being a doctor, businessman and philanthropist is cited to an article titled Las Vegas doctor denies allegations he runs militia accused of slayings in Nigeria. Huh???? Anyway, I don't know if he meets GNG or not. One thing I think should be noted is that the BBC famously doesn't use bylines (see these three articles from their front page today, none of which credit an author). jp×g 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I recently noticed that as well. Thanks for the comment JP, as for the notability status of the subject of our discussion, it is non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This clearly has several NPOV issues, but I don't know how someone could come to the conclusion this fails WP:GNG without discounting basically the entire Nigerian media. He's had multiple pieces of significant coverage in the Vanguard, The Sun, and the Nation, Pulse NG, as well as the BBC - I don't need to bring the LVRJ article into this. Also, this article doesn't look like a PR sponsored post. It doesn't count towards WP:GNG because it's an opinion piece, and there probably has been some PR planting, but looking just at the references in the article shows there's several that are general news coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per SportingFlyer. Yes their are clear issues, and the article needs some trimming of overly promotional material. But what’s left still satisfies WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — I can see how this can be very tricky and can be confusing for editors not familiar with the Nigerian landscape. In Nigeria, even our so called reliable media are very much corrupt and can accept financial reward from the subject of our discussion and fail to declare the piece as a “sponsored post” anything is possible in Nigeria if you have the right amount of money to bribe your way through. An important factor is to examine the sources used, read them closely and you’d see they are all promotional in nature. You can easily identify this as almost all sources used in the article all sound like, which is a take sign of a pr sponsored post. To prove my point, this very article has all the tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. The Nigerian media is very much exceptional due to the gross amount of corruption ongoing in Nigeria. Take a close look at the sources used currently in the article and you’d see the promotionalism I make reference to. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I am not arguing that all of the sources in the article were non-promotional - some clearly were, and I took that into consideration with my assessment. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Please read the actual articles. They're a combination of purffer and promotional interviews. It's not just Nigeria--no country's newspapers are free from this. The overall reliability of a source fddoes not necessarily extend to all the content in that source, and the pur promotionalism by a likely coi editort make this all the more obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article is clearly biased and needs a lot of work but this does not seem to fail WP:GNG. Maduka has had plenty of coverage as a gubernatorial candidate, some promotional interviews but mostly standard election coverage that prove notability. Like SportingFlyer, I don't see an argument for delete without discounting basically the entirety of Nigerian media. Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. I have found one journal article attributed to him which is Cited by 1 according to Google scholar. Uhooep (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article, not notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It does appear that this individual has been covered extensively by RS - BBC Pidgin did a review of this individual, and it appears that this individual has been extensively covered by local Nigerian sources with regard to his attempt at the governorship of Anambra (although I make no comment on the general reliability of Nigerian sources). That said, this article is a hot mess of puffery as it stands. Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 18:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I noted and fixed some issues. Not sure about the notability of this one. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This person has received plenty of coverage in Nigerian media, but it definitely needs cleanup. Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 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.