Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maigeri Ede

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. In coming to this decision, I have given lower weight to contributions by a number of seeming WP:SPAs. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maigeri Ede

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

vanity spam sourced entirely to sponsored pieces, non rs and press releases masquerading as news outlets. no indication this person is notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just trying to push non-notable person in wikipedia by multiple accounts on Draft & mainspace. DIVINE 📪 06:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article content on NPOV,subject represents and manage notable and verifiable subjects with Wikipedia pages. As a football agent as well as entrepreneur and has featured in notable newspapers, he is notable. Katobara Katobara 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)— Katobara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
{{citation needed}}

You can say "he's notable" as much as you want but in the absence of in-depth, independent coverage, it means nothing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I can see notability associates with this article. There are many articles that have no media coverage but there renowned work makes to be notable. For instance, Vice Chancellors of the universities and many more. My major concern here is that administrator have reviewed it and he is one of the core major Wikipedia contributor for sports. Though there is blatant media coverage but his renowned work in establishing notable players need to be considered can't be overlook. There are numerous players he lifted them up, he is also licensed intermediary of English Football Association. Gartuwaso (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Gartuwaso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
administrators have not reviewed it and even if they did, administrators are not authority on content control or decisions. There isn't significant in depth coverage, independent of Ede. You're making an argument that isn't encyclopedic - "he's well liked and does good things!". Well good for him, but it's ultimately meaningless for an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
article subject is not notable and doesn’t pass WP: GNG has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubts here. Google searches return reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.177.11 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:PROMO.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no article. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject notable and as per Katobara, he represents notable and GNG Wikipedia verifiable footballers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridialeena (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Afridialeena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. conforms to WP: SIGCOV and pass GNG. Quite interesting comments here about notability of the subject and article. The article has “Michael Maigeri Ede” who is still the same person as “Michael Ede”. Most of the notability falls under this name and Google news confirms some reliable sources on this subject.

Maybe we advise that this article be included with some narrative around “Michael Ede” as even the references left on the article can be a stand alone. The workaround can be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burberryjzk89 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Burberryjzk89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Contradictory! Article definitely conforms to WP: SIGCOV and hence passes WP: GNG . As per Gartuwaso, I agree in same line of reasoning and understanding. According to Wikipedia: “Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives” This subject is notable with verifiable references. That most of you aren’t able to substantiate his notability doesn’t make the article lack in-depth independent coverage. Arguably, this single entity doesn’t fall under ‘rare historical source’ but notability fall under the name “Michael Ede” which I presume is same subject in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsankhan787 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)— Ahsankhan787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closer. There are a large number of single-purpose accounts voting keep in this AFD. As such, WP:Sockpuppetry, Wp:Meatpuppetry, or WP:Canvasing may be impacting this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI CU has been requested here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to locate any coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject. What I was able to locate was paid-for spam which does not meet requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. This is not an issue of SPA nor was anyone invited to participate in the voting here. This topic was added to “ Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, Nigeria, and United Kingdom.” above; And as such most of the editors commenting saw this from their respective areas.

Also, am sure every editor understands that this discussion is a consensus agreement based on merit of the agreement which all editors understands based on the terms of Wikipedia ethics.

From my perspective, I have made comments on other articles in light to the understanding of the discussion and understands the fact that it’s not a vote. Burberryjzk89 (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2022 (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.