Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam E. Jonah


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam E. Jonah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was reported to us at OTRS by someone who received an email proposing a business relationship. Not exactly the classic Nigerian scam but close. I glanced at the references and external links. The single reference is behind a pay wall. The external links aren't contributing to a belief that this is legitimate. I did a quick Google search, and didn't find anything very supportive. This may well be a hoax but I'd like a couple of their eyes to take a look at it and possibly consider a CSD rather than AFD. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also add I haven't ruled out the possibility that Sam Jonah is legitimate, but someone other than him, pretending to be him is perpetrating a scam and linking to the Wikipedia article.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I suppose as I was aware of the improvements but looking at it now makes the article seem better and acceptable. Delete in any case because it seems he actually exists per this and this but I'm not seeing any better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revisiting the discussion. Just a note that as per WP:NEXIST, topic notability on Wikipedia is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, notability is based upon overall available sources. As such, even a topic with an article with no sources can be notable, as per whether or not the topic itself it has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. North America1000 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - With coverage in multiple reliable sources like the UK's Guardian, et al, I would say he passes WP:GNG. He is also on Forbes' list of the 20 most powerful African businessmen today. and has a cover article in Forbes Africa.  Probably whoever sent the email was scamming on this guy's name.  ABF99 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's received an honorary knighthood for God's sake. Clearly qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1 if nothing else. Having a scam perpetrated in his name does not invalidate his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep references now in the article provide evidence of notability. Peter James (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has received significant coverage and passes notability criteria.— UY Scuti Talk  07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Also qualifies per WP:ANYBIO point #1 as per being knighted. Source examples include:, , , , , , . North America1000 08:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm convinced, nice work finding sources and improving the article. I can't think of anything we could do to the article to prevent it being used in a scam, and, arguably, that's not our responsibility.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing arguable about it. It's certainly not our responsibility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 6 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.