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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Kwame Adu-Mante

Kwame Adu-Mante (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No demonstration of notability, and the company he works has no article. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx ( talk) 20:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep — I don't know what the nom means when they wrote "struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources..." Considering the fact that most of the sources cited are reliable African sources with in-depth coverage of the subject, I would say their WP:BEFORE and understanding of RS is pretty bad. Many of those sources cited in the article are RS news agencies that covers Africa - especially his country. Also, just because there is no article on his organisation does not mean he is not notable. Maybe the guy is notable but the organisation is not. Maybe both are notable bur one has not bothered to created an article for the organisation yet. Notability or lack of is not inherited. That is a silly argument. Tamsier ( talk) 10:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: I am not sure what number one might consider "most of the sources" cited are reliable African sources with in-depth coverage of the subject". Two sources are primary and don't advance notability, two sources are dead links, so likely not so reliable, Graphic Online includes wording "“Our brands have a strong reputation" (and others) which sounds like a press release and advertising. What I see in this source is business related over biographical information. GhanaWeb contains wording "it’s current holdings in Spice and Beach FM remain intact and shall be strengthened to enable it to maintain its leadership as the leading radio broadcast hub in the region.", with tones of advertising that might likely come from the company. I can't see (in the two actual sources that could count towards notability) anything approaching encyclopedic biographical content. There is an amount listed on the article that includes weasel wording whooping (lacking sourcing I may have missed) "100,000 Ghanaian cedi". In one of the primary sources I saw "sixty thousand Ghana cedis" and said philanthropist is "prepared to spend more". If this is true there is likely original research. The article has "six" general references and no in line citations for text–source integrity. This source is more business than biographical (please see WP:PSEUDO) and probably why this is mentioned. I found a source Business World, with one paragraph "Meet Kwame Adu – Mante", but I don't see this as enough and maybe why it may be more plausible as an article on an organization over a BLP. I also don't see significant coverage either and my editing count and time on Wikipedia is far less than the noms. Otr500 ( talk) 03:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete the subject lacks the necessary amount of significant, independent coverage about them to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; every source cited by the article is either not in-depth enough or WP:PRIMARY, and the subject does not inherit undue amounts of notability from companies he is affiliated with. A search for more quality sources online does not assuage these concerns.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (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.