Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifeanyi Fitex

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Fitex

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible UPE article on a politician who doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. He also is a businessman but doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm unfamiliar with Nigeria topics and I don't know if he's notable, but I caught fake referencing where the provided reference had nothing to do with what it was trying to support. WP:BLP requires proper sourcing with foot notes for claims about living people; as such I removed unsourced stuff from it. Graywalls (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, thanks for that, it’s a tactic used to create a facade to make the subject look as though they were notable. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article calls him a politician, but then fails to state what political roles he may have actually held — and even the sources just label him as a candidate for political office, not a person who has actually held one. But candidates don't get articles just for being candidates, the article says nothing about him that can even be measured against any other inclusion test to see if he has any other legitimate notability claims at all, and the sourcing is nowhere near adequate to claim that he would pass GNG regardless of whether he actually had a meaningful notability claim or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no indication this person has held any sort of significant political office. The most significant coverage in the references provided is a report about somebody damaging his fence and nothing to do with politics. -- Whpq (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not representing any elected office to pass WP:NPOL. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.