Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eke Chukwu: Difference between revisions

Eke Chukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can’t see anything suggesting notability as we define it. Autobiography of actor playing minor parts and making his own non-notable films. Refs are junk like IMDB and the Express too Jimfbleak – talk to me? 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that the Internet Movie Database and the Daily Express newspaper are junk. The IMDb is the world’s most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content where you can find ratings and reviews for the newest movie and TV shows. The Daily Express is, according to Wikipedia: A national daily United Kingdom middle-market newspaper printed in tabloid format. Published in London, it is the flagship of Express Newspapers, owned by publisher Reach plc. It was first published as a broadsheet in 1900 by Sir Arthur Pearson. Its sister paper, the Sunday Express, was launched in 1918. In June 2022, it had an average daily circulation of 201,608. To call these reference sources ‘Junk’ appears to be disingenuous. Ekechukwu (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Imdb is junk to be frank, it’s user contributed, so we can’t trust anything that’s published there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Ekechukwu, perhaps “junk” was a bit strong, but IMDB is not acceptable here because its entries can be self-created and self-edited, and the Express, along with the Mail and Sun are seen here as unreliable. The only UK papers viewed as good independent sources are the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the FT and their Sunday equivalents. In any case, the issue is more about whether you meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) than the sources Jimfbleak – talk to me? 14:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I have removed the IMDb cites, as they are not acceptable to use as sources in the text, and I requested cites for the unreferenced assertions. Now it will be easier for people to evaluate the sources that do appear in the entry. Certainly this article should be trimmed of much of the trivia per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. — Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don’t see anything about this person, some theatre reviews are posted, but they’re more about the overall production, than about this person. Has had a long career, but appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only sources I could find were directory listings on IMDb, Tubi, Rotten Tomatoes, and similar websites listing works by this subject. A search of books and newspapers turned up nothing substantive. If the unsourced or poorly sourced material were removed, we would be left with just a list of appearances that doesn’t meet WP:CREATIVE. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of non-iMDb sources/significant coverage and article was created for promotional purposes. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ekechukwu, You might not be aware of our concerns that poorly sourced articles are being used as an excuse by powerful critics to try to take away our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments raised above. DonBeroni (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]