Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Chudi Ejekam


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Chudi Ejekam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following sock puppets of another undisclosed paid editor, I have discovered this article as another promotional piece. Creator is blocked as a sockpuppet and SPI says all edits by all accounts of this editor were for COI promotion of clients without disclosing them as paid edits which is a violation of Wikipedia Terms of Service.

This article is a similar promo BLP about a non notable individual who does not make the cut to be on wikipedia. The content is also clearly promotional with statements such as "played a vital role in the formal retail revolution" and is most likely aimed at acquiring rankings in google search which is another abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a SEO tool. Other proponents and edits possibly include BLP violations that accuse involvement in scam but they do not match up to WP:CRIME criteria as well so this individual is non notable on both basis.

I have done some google searching and all websites that come up are bare mentions of the individual, drive by quotes by him in news sources again with bare mentions, PR sources and results that are other individuals by the same or similar name.


 * Hereby, I nominate this article for deletion and !vote delete on the basis of WP:GNG, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI and not to mention undisclosed paid editing by a proven sock puppet. Drewziii (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any article created by a sock of a banned user qualifies for immediate Speedy Delete per WP:G5, and I have tagged it as such. No need for the full AfD process on this one. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I declined the G5. The master was blocked on May 1, and the puppet created the article on April 30. To qualify for G5, a puppet must create the article after either the master or another puppet was blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's nothing at all actually suggesting any solid independent notability by far, there's nothing minimally acceptable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:29, 3 June 2016 (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.