Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Asiedu (2nd nomination)

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. This has proven to be quite an in-depth debate, certainly in the first week, and much of it has focused on the quality (and the perceived lack of reliability and independence) of the sources. Having examined the contributions and concerns enclosed within the debate, I feel there is a consensus for deletion that I am thus acting upon. Note: Despite a request during the debate and some issues with editing from a blocked user prior to the AFD nomination proper, I am not salting the page, but if issues with inappropriate recreation of the content occur I am sure myself or a fellow administrator will take such action at the time. (It is always possible that additional sources and developments could lead to a stronger case for inclusion, and I would not want to create an undue barrier to the creation of an article in the future, which is why I am opting to not salt as an outcome to this debate.) I hope this explains my reasons for the close, as I appreciate that this has been a hotly-contested debate. KaisaL (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Asiedu

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and I'd og so far as to say doesn't meet GNG, but there are two things going on here. The article was previously CSDed during the first AfD about a day ago as material created by a blocked user (it was a c/p move of a declined AFC draft of the same article). The article was requested to be userfied, and then was dropped back into mainspace by the user who requested userfication without substanatial change from the CSDed version (which was also declined at AFC, which I think is key to its overall lack of suitability for the encyclopedia). On top of that, the subject is not notable and does not assert notability. His companies have limited press, but he as an individual does not. The first two sources (Sun Online) simply don't exist online, and they can't be found except on LinkedIn Pulse, which isn't RS. The article also says Asiedu is the chair of "Sun Publishing", which very likely implies that even if the sources existed, Asiedu is not independent of the Sun Online paper. Therefore, the six citations to those sources aren't verifiable, and are likely not independent odf the source if they were. The third is a report on a company memorandum of understanding Asiedu signed as chairman, and also does not report the piece of information cited to it. The fourth is again in the context of a company MoU the subject signed, and rather than say Asiedu is the chair, says he is a shareholder, so that's not a correct citation. The UN article has a "Chairman's Response" from Asiedu in the role he serves with the organization named, but is not about Asiedu. the Cape Coast article isn't independent because it says Asiedu serves on the Advisory Board of the school (he doesn't, he's a member of the "Diamond Club" listed in the article), and I honestly have no idea about the Peace FM site, because it is a radio station site that claims to only cover local news, and the notability of the event isn't even addressed. Nevertheless, the content is about the speech, not the subject, and does not even include the claim cited to it that he worked for the African Development Bank. Therefore, what the sources claim is either untrue or unverifiable, three of the six sources aren't independent of the subject, and none of them offer significant coverage of the subject as required by GNG, not will the subject inherit notability from his companies. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG: I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the sources. Gulf African review is not a trivial mention, there's whole paragraphs about him in the article. TV3 is also a more than trivial mention; there are whole paragraphs about him in that article as well. Those two combine to pass WP:GNG. Also, per WP:PAYWALL, only being available on LinkedIn Pulse is not in an of itself a reason to say that the sources are unreliable. Sources don't even have to be online to be reliable! I would also caution the nominator for seemingly using notability, verifiability and reliability seemingly interchangeably. To a certain extent, what is in the article isn't entirely relevant to whether the article passes GNG or not; what is relevant is what is in the sources, and what type of sources those are. Also, in his claim about AfC, the nominator fails to note that the article was reviewed and accepted by an AfC reviewer (me) prior to being mainspaced. p b p 21:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, it's not paywall; I mean it is flat-out gone from the Internet (the domain doesn't resolve, period) except for being available on LinkedIn, where it only appears as a Pulse listing, and we can't use LinkedIn per RS. I don't know what you are seeing in those two sources "about Asiedu the individual" - those sources are about the companies he chairs, not the subject, or they are things he said, not things about the subject. Things the subject says are not independent of the subject. This is a biographical article, not an article about his companies, and they are different. That is the sourcing problem here. Also, I appreciate the COI disclosure - you pushed for the original nom not to be deleted in the first AfD despite being previously declined at AFC, had it userfied, then you approved it at AFC anyway and pushed it into mainspace yourself. I was wondering why the old draft history had disappeared. I'll let the community deal with the WP:POINT. MSJapan (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sources don't have to be online to be invalid. And stop making spurious POINT accusations: I violated no policies or procedures in what I did, my reviewer rights allow me to accept AfCs, and the only thing POINTy here is that I don't toe your line, or the line of the reviewer who declined the old AfC, 100%. You make it seem like I or the whole community has to accept what one reviewer said as written in stone, when in fact he/she as much right as a reviewer to decline an article as I do to accept it. p b p 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the reviewer found exactly what I did, and if you think otherwise, why are you ignoring the fact that the subject owns the paper whose articles are being used for the majority of sources to prove his notability? How do you have a source called "X Online" that can be "reliable" when a) it's not online, as in it doesn't exist anymore, and b) the subject of the article owns the paper? Why are you not addressing the fact that a BIO article has to be about a person, not the things they say? If I give a speech, that doesn't mean I get an article, but it does mean that the fact I made the speech gets mentioned. Stop trying to make this personal, and address the sourcing issues instead. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not basing the case for notability on those particular sources... Also, how am I making this personal? I'm not the one accusing you of POINT. p b p 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you folk give it a rest and let the community decide whether the subject is notable? You went from bickering on my Talk page to bickering here. It's not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request - @MSJapan: can you please summarize your reason for deletion. I don't think the wall of text you've posted is going encourage participation in this AfD. The reason you gave previously was concise but apparently invalid. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I get the feeling he's not gonna respond. You may just want to go ahead and vote. p b p 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address the nom's del reason(s). I guess I can just assume MSJapan is asserting that the subject is not notable. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are essentially PR, and so is the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, this fails WP:GNG. Simply having a bunch of questionable sources covering a subject doesn't make them notable. Let's have a look at the sources:

"Faces at Alex Asiedus 59th Birthday Bash" (Available at linkedin) - This is NOT an independent source. Read this:The investment banker-turned-international businessman, who is also the Chairman of The Sun Publishing Ghana Limited, was all smile. Basically the subject's own newspaper is writing about him.
"ARII to begin Unprecedented Medical Mission" NOT an independent source. Same newspaper as above
"Atlantic Holdings Agbogba Anglican Basic Schools Questionable reliablity, quotes subject in context of company, notability is not inherited. The title of the news article makes me wonder how reliable this publication is. In addition, the article simply quotes the person. It doesn't say anything why the subject is notable. In addition, the subject is quoted simply because the company signed some agreement. There is nothing to independently prove the notability of the subject here.
"UAE Based Sino Ghanaian firm to build ict plant in Nigeria" - in GulfAfricaReview. One line mention in context of company, notability is not inherited A one sentence mention, that too in context of a company which signed the agreement is not significant coverage. In addition, it is not known how reliable/independent the source it. From the looks of it, it seems they like to publish press releases.
"Ghanaian NGO African Rights Initiative gets UN recognition NOT an independent source, also in context of organisation Check out the last line where it says With additional files from the thesunonlinegh. Basically, a press release and not independent. The PR language is apparent here.
"Vice-President Launches UCC Diamond Club Trivial 3 word mention in a non-notable university group A listing of the members of a university group and the subject is listed as well. Trivial mention which says nothing about the subject
"Leadership Must Be Dedicated to Change in Africa- Alex Asiedu" So so. Not a great source, reads like a PR, but I will pass. The source is more about what the subject said at a fundraiser. I don't know how reliable the source is, but it at least talks a bit about the subject. Considering the lack of reliable, independent sources, this is probably the best among all of these.

We need reliable secondary sources independent of the subject for notability. Clearly, we do not have enough sources at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Kvng: - Lemongirl942 made exactly the points I made in my nom in a different format, and thus should suffice to answer your question above. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Should the article be deleted, given the ongoing sockpuppetry involved with this article, I'm going to request that this article additionally be SALTED, as well as the targets Alex Asiedu, Draft:Alexander Asiedu, and Draft:Alex Asiedu to prevent re-creation without explicit request. MSJapan (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit much. After all, the guy who originally drafted the article was found not to be connected with the guy who previously mainspaced it. Also, things generally aren't SALTed until they are re-created after a full AfD, i.e., if the AfD passes (which it shouldn't), and somebody still recreates it, then it should be SALTed. Also, there's no reason to SALT Alex Asiedu as nobody's ever created anything at it. p b p 13:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] is arguably significant coverage and [2] appears to meet WP:GNG requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not. Lemongirl made it very clear that Gulf Africa Review was a one line mention in the context of a company. MSJapan (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with Lemongirl on this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. lemongirl's analysis shows trivial mentions or PR based sources. LibStar (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2016 (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.