Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gudinva Saloh


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Gudinva Saloh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician at best, hoax at worst. All provided online references are either dead links or do not mention the subject. Searching for the subject online reveals nothing except mirrors of this article and of Water supply and sanitation in Burkina Faso where the assumed logged-out IP of the article creator added his name. A search for "Saloh" on the Burkinabe government web site also came up empty. Article was recently restored per a WP:REFUND request after having been deleted per WP:PROD in August 2017. --Finngall talk 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I get the same lack of hits for his name (and still only 32 hits if you search only "Gudinva"!) Other people were Minister for Water and Sanitation and Minister for Agriculture and Immigration (which the article originally said) at the time. Links at . I can't verify that Saloh exists. Mortee (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a cabinet minister in a national government is certainly a valid notability claim in principle, but the condition is that we have to be able to properly verify that the claim is actually true — which none of the sources here do, and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator and Mortee at finding anything better. I'm in no way an expert in Burkinabé politics, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find and show sources which actually verify that he ever really held the claimed office — for example, it might be possible that the reason we're not finding anything is because there's a spelling error in the title, and we'd find proper verification if we knew the correct spelling — but as things stand right now, this does indeed look very much like a WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no opinion on whether this is a hoax, but certainly the utter dearth of sources providing any coverage suggests the topic lacks any notability whatsoever. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 7 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.