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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Thompson Iyamu[edit]

Prince Thompson Iyamu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. The two books mentioned are issued by a self-publishing company named "Bookbaby". Promotional. The Banner talk 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Page reads like a puff piece and needs to be trimmed but subject is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, in particular the need to establish notability by reliable and independent sources. Of the 5 sources referenced:

• Two sources (Pretty-Hot and Awesomegang) are near-certainly not-independent per WP:IS, as:
  • the sources allow (indeed, rely on) user/subject-generated content (see %5B1%5D, %5B2%5D, %5B3%5D, and %5B4%5D) Note that I'm not questioning its usage (as that seems to be allowed for self-published and questionable sources as sources of themselves. It's the independence of the sources that is at issue.

and

• it cannot be determined whether content publshed by the sources has or has not been paid for by the subject (indicating potential conflict of interest) (see %5B1%5D and %5B3%5D).

• At least one source (The Crazy Mind) does not provide any information to establish its reliability. A quick read of the website's source code provides indication that it's a self-published blog hosted on Blogger, and a WHOIS query does not give any indication to the contrary.
• One source (Essex Magazine) describes itself as a tabloid magazine, with no way to determine its editorial independence and reliability (per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES, see also WP:PUS#News media).
• Finally, the remaining source, also casts doubts as to its reliability. The source was written by a "Mwaura Samora" (a quick Google search of whom provided no indication of being a reputable journalist, nor could his claim to winning the 2012 UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) Award be verified). The content was published on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform, which does not seem to be subject to editorial oversight (given the disclaimer which reads: "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.").

My conclusion is therefore that none of these sources, either alone or combined, can establish notability. A quick Google search does not provide any other independent, reliable sources, which could establish notability either. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Excellent work in vetting the sources, talk2Chun. I wish more editors would assess the validity of sources to the extent you've shown here. Too many will see "Huffington Post" and automatically assume it is significant, or click on a link and if it looks important will mistake it for being reliable and/or independent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - thank you for that investogation, talk2Chun. The sources are not enough to show notability. Looking at the article history, it's also apparent that it was reviewed and rejected in AfC and shortly thereafter moved to articlespace by a brand-new editor (who, incidentally, has also moved two other drafts by the user who created this article to mainspace). The content is the same as in the rejected version, there's just a couple of additional sources, and as conclusively shown above, the sources are not sufficient. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per User:Talk2chun.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (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.