Reason: Draftified the article for sile purpose of being improved. Yet moved back to main space without addressing citation needed tags and notability. Clearly fails
WP:GNG. A thorough name of the artist cannot be seen on google /bing search before talking about references. The article cited sources which seems to be obvious blog and non of them is reliable.
Reason: I declined the CSD and now going through AFD. The neutrality of the article is disputed and was created as clear first level advert, even with seeing
this. The editor created many drafts with has redirected to here. The sources seems unclear and being questioned. But the article fails
WP: GNG,
WP: ANYBIO,
WP: SPORTSPERSON.
Reason: I can't find any reasonable.purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails
WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any
WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still
Notability is not inherited. While I believe
Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future
Reason: I wanted to redirect but decide to AFD so that a consensus will be made. The article was typically based on
M.O.N.T including if not all the sources. The article didn't pass
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. I AFD it to he WP:TOOSOON and per WP: MUSICBIO may need to be redirected to the article
M.O.N.T. For
WP:PRESERVE, Like the singing competition may be fixed variably and optionally, though he may not meet.
Reason: Fails GNG and no SIGCOV. Being a head of a church regards a notable one per
WP:BISHOP and verifiable by multiple reliable sources. It is noteworthy to say: it's neither written as an Encyclopedic material nor a notable reference since it lacks context also to identify WP:N
Reason: I can't find much SIGCOV to establish notability. Almost all the sources if not all were about his company which are too not notable per
WP: ORG. No way yet for meeting GNG. Fails business people guideline for notability.
Reason: I am doubtful of passing GNG. Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this
one although have no results nor passes
WP:NPOL. SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO.
Reason: There are many sources but all are blogs and self published. No way to notability and SIGCOV. The books were all self pubs and the citations were blogs from unreliable sources. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR and no way to SNG
Reason: An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source.
Reason: An article about the CEO of a bank which doesn't prove notability. It's more of inherent and not a direct entry to Wikipedia. It was
proposed for deletion but was deproded for redirect /merge. When it has been redirected, another editor reverted it with reasons whatsoever. It s more to civility and consensus if it's discussed. For now, it down meets GNG, but per
WP:ATD, redirect to
Lotus Bank
Reason: An article about an individual who gained not much into sports. I am still looking for redirect and per SIGCOV, it's pure to the purest eyes of lacking even microscopic sources! King me when sources are found and I will be ready to withdraw (I also didn't see any from BEFORE!).
Reason: An article about a Nigerian actress, filmmaker, Philanthropist and a business woman that doesn't meet Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines and
WP:NACTOR. The actress has appeared in non notable films and has neither lead any role or praised for that role in any film per
WP:BEFORE. Gross case of
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: the sources seems to bear interview natures like "she said", "I did abortion", etc and doesn't mean
WP:SIGCOV. Sideway drive of promotional clauses !
Reason: Not hit of SIGCOV on google news aside from database results which is lot a secondary source or
WP:RS. The articles didn't meet
WP:GNG,
WP:SPORTSBIO and
WP:SPORTSCRIT for the time. May be notable in the future!
Reason: An article that lacks context for readers and editor. Looking at the article, I can't say whether it's a place or something related to an organisation. Hence, doesn't meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NCORP,
WP:NGEO. I have searched for sources but found none. The one source cited seems not strong to attain
WP:GNG as it doesn't pose significant coverage or verifiable ones that say the topic exist and is notable.Aside from theses, facts needs to be verifiable. I will also need a ping when sources are found.
Reason: I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for
reliable sources.On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those I have removed removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for
author,
WP:JOURNALIST—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.The books doesn't meet our guidelines for
books, so we may try redirecting or
WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Reason: An article about a business person that doesn't present
WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet
WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability.
Reason: An article that doesn't meet
WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability.
Reason: An article that doesn't meet
WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to
Nicholas Opiyo.