Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imoh Son of David


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Imoh Son of David

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The sources provided are social blogs with no editorial oversight. He is evidently not the subject of Sahara Reporters. He might be notable in the future but WP:TOOSOON to have an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at this time. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. The article is overly promotional ("foremost atheist author" etc.) Most links are to his own articles or his books on Amazon. Every URL was mal-formed (I've fixed that) which made verifying the sources rather difficult. Others link to pages that seem unrelated to the subject. I suspect that the author of this article should have gone through AfC because they don't understand notability or referencing. If nothing else, this is too soon because the book's date on Amazon is Oct 15, 2015, so it's only been out a few weeks. The article was created 2 days ago. We should at least offer "userfy" and going through AfC. However, I'm not very hopeful that it would pass.  LaMona (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom and above editors. 's assessment is particularly spot-on. I would agree with the userfy, except the creator of the article has not shown an interest in participating in this discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:57, 8 November 2015 (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.