Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marksman Ijiomah

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. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marksman Ijiomah

[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)

Borderline G11 eligible covert UPE article on an “entrepreneur” and “businessman” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a GNG fail. All awards “claimed to have been won” are not substantial and predominantly are paid for awards. A before search doesn’t show hits in reliable sources. The ref bombing is a futile attempt in creating a mirage of notability of which almost all sources used aren’t remotely reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to me that the subject fails WP:GNG requirements, as the sources seem to be only either passing mentions (e.g. about sponsorships) or not of suitable quality, and I couldn't find anything else substantial with a BEFORE-style search. I'm watchlisting this AfD discussion, as I may be wrong about quality of the sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article because I was fascinated by the philanthropy of Marksman Ijiomah. When I Googled and found out that he was a billionaire running an international conglomerate and wasn’t on Wikipedia, I decided a few days ago to make a biographical entry. With national dailies in Nigeria like This Day, Sun Newspapers, and National Asset writing about him, as well as several other news sites, I believed both the acts and sources were genuine enough for notability. Should editors feel that he fails WP:GNG, and the sources used in this article are promotional, I wouldn’t put up any defense. I have nothing to lose, save the time I have put into writing it. To be clear, I do not know Marksman Ijiomah, neither have I or anyone I know personally benefitted from his philanthropy, or expect to get any reward from him. Tagging this article WP:G11 is reasonable and understandable for the purpose of consensus, but the nominator referring to me as a UPE editor in an edit summary on the article because he/she was emotional about the death of someone mentioned in the article, whom the subject paid medical bills for (which was also reported by no less a medium than BBC), is enough insult to the times I decided to sit up and write researched articles here. How does one profit from the death of another by citing an act of generosity that was made when the dead person was alive. Is there a guideline requiring editors to be selective of the published facts they include in articles so they don’t offend emotional editors? The nominator is forcing me to think he/she either has an axe to grind with the subject or has an unrevealed vested interest.Bemmax (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Bemmax, you wouldn’t see it now but your last statements betrayed and outed you. It’s called reverse psychology, a method that has been used in vain to guilt trip editors combatting UPE. Sorry it doesn't work anymore. Okay, prove me wrong and feel free to bring to this AFD the reliable sources you say makes the subject of our discussion satisfy our notability inclusion policy and id dissect them for you. Furthermore if you can stop spamming/using Wikipedia as a platform to promote non notable “business men” and “entrepreneurs” it would be a good idea. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Celestina007, I wouldn't have replied to this but your last statement gives the impression that I have been spamming/using Wikipedia to create articles for "businessmen and entrepreneurs," whereas this is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is my second article relating to a businessperson in my over six years of being here. Using words like "reverse psychology," and going further to create a false impression of my activities here is misleading. I was led to creating this article because of the "philanthropy" of the subject, and not because he is a "businessman". It is the sources I came across that made me write a section about his business. I would not be drawn into defending this article since you have already stated your reasons for this AFD. Other editors are well vexed in dissecting them too. Whatever the decision, it is for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I stand by it. Let's not dominate this space, please.Bemmax (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, could have been CSD G11, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2021 (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.