Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Asare

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Asare

[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)

BLP of a Ghanaian blogger and influencer, previously speedy deleted under A7 and G11, recreated now but still lacking in anything suggesting notability. Sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward is a notable person in Ghana and well recognized and respected for his work and impact.Ruby D-Brown (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All references provided tells a good story about him lets keep. Jwale2 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not promotional Wikipedia is built on references, and at least three of such is not "sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism" as you claim. The article is worth keeping. Uprising Man (talk)
Keep: The article on Edward Asare entails credible references. Moreover, he is well known for his significant impact in the blogging industry. This article should be kept. Kaffzz (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The Article has credible references and there is nothing that suggests it is not written in a neutral point of view, let's keep it.Anani A. George (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source 1 tells us the subject has a verified account on twitter, but that certainly doesn’t make him notable. The story is clearly based on his own publicity.

Source 2 has a disclaimer saying it carries syndicated content and user-generated content, which this obviously is.

Source 3 is about an awards win, also based on a press release, full of ludicrous bloated language.

Source 4 won’t load for me but from the headlines it’s the announcement of the 50 top bloggers in Ghana. What this contributes to notability I can’t say.

Source 5 is an interview with the subject.

Source 6 also looks like it’s based on his own pr.

Source 7 is an interview with the subject.

Source 8 is a copy of the same press release in source 3.

Source 9 appears to be sourced to the same press release as source 4.

There isn’t a single piece of reliable in depth coverage by a third party here. It’s all promotional or self-promotional nonsense, churnalism of the worst sort. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article looks good and has references that are independent of the subject. xibitgh (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article follows all the guidelines including notability and verifiable references. pambelle12 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above I went through each source and showed how it was not reliable or not independent. For example source three says “The award was to honour and recognize his exploits as a refined Digital Marketer with vast experience and exposure.” Source 8 says exactly the same thing. Did two independent journalists coincidentally come up with the identical phrase? Is this the kind of language reliable sources use, or is it the kind of thing self-promoters say in their own press releases? Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel that, despite all the keep !votes, the issue with the credibility of sources still remains. I'd like to see some more critical input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article pass WP:GNG and the listed references are based on many famous and reliable websites in Ghana. Charmk (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 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.