Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Aboya

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aboya

[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)

straight up promotional and likely paid article with poor sourcing, fails ncreative and i can find nothing in the way of coverage. Also previously deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : Looks Promotional Tatupiplu'^talk

"fails ncreative and i can find nothing in the way of coverage." Is your internet censored or something? "can find nothing in the way of coverage"? What is that supposed to mean? A simple google search didn't reveal anything in your browser?

"straight up promotional and likely paid article with poor sourcing". Oh well... *facepalm

--Nkansahrexford (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having results on google does not mean something is notable. Coverage in independent reliable sources matter. Praxidicae (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be maintained subject has had significant coverage from the first time the article was first deleted till date. If the texts are promotional the promotional portions can be highlight so that it can be rewritten but to delete it outright is not in good faith.Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I deleted this as promo before, still is to pursue his dreams of becoming a photographer... His style of photography and storytelling is considered to inspire, empower and get in touch with the emotions of his viewers (by whom?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, those parts have been edited out but I don't think it's right to refer to a deletion 2 years ago when circumstances have changed and more facts are now known about the subject. I don't think his notability is in doubt now.Owula kpakpo (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the question is whether the recent awards satisfy NARTIST or GNG. Specifically, is winning the Agora Images Agora Awards enough. On the one hand, there were 130,000 entries, and coverage in Forbes. On the other hand, there isn't much independent coverage of the award itself. And the WP:PROMO problem is somewhat persistent, as the Bored Panda one is actually written by Agora. If deleted, this will likely be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Theredproject (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : As others have pointed out, you must have independent coverage for notability. Everyone in the world in 2020 can be found with a google search, it must have strong coverage to survive. - AH (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - AH, have you cared to check the links in the article to see if they are not strong and independent coverage and mind you not everyone can have significant coverage on Google the first page of their search would let you know if they are notable or not.Owula kpakpo (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NARTIST. There is a lot of promotional stuff in the text that would need to go if the subject were Wikinotable but he's not, yet. Is he regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors? No, he's not per sources or lack thereof. Is he known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? No, he isn't. Has he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [that has been] the primary subject of an independent and notable work [such as a book, film, or television series? Nope. Wikipedia is not an all-inclusive collection of information.

A case of WP:TOOSOON, hopefully. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 14 April 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.