Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Edobor


 * 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) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Martin Edobor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a very well known person. Minor political activist. Never held publicly elected position. Robellion (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG: no in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There are a few comments from him and mentions of him, but nothing much about him. He has been published as a writer in a few blogs/magazines but nothing that attracted significant comment or reviews. And he hasn't held political office sufficient to make him automatically notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being the chair of a political party's youth wing is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — it can get him an article if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not hand him an automatic presumption of notability on bad sources just because he exists. But the sources here aren't supporting a GNG pass at all, as it's based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2017 (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.