Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Enenche (4th nomination)

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 speedy delete‎ per WP:G5, based on the blatantly abusive use of multiple sockpuppets to recreate this after the previous deletions. Getting around the EC protection indicates this isn't the creator's first stab at sockpuppetry, even if the exact master account is uncertain. Given that this is a WP:BLP subject with apparent controversies over politics and religion, keeping the sockpuppet created content would be particularly negligent. I will also be applying full protection to this title and the alternative title that was used for the initial recreation. Anyone who wants to try again can request recreation by showing a draft space or user space version with appropriate sources.

With that said, the better Keep comments did highlight coverage from reliable news outlets that might be the foundation of a viable article, so I encourage future reviewers to keep an open mind about the possible notability of the subject, if and when a "clean" version is presented. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche (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)

Not a G4, and not (yet) a confirmed G5 but no indication notability has changed since the three prior deletion discussions. Making political sermons which garnered attention does not change one's notability. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Medicine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still not seeing notability, disappointed to see this return after salting. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ref 14 is pure PROMO: "His salvation journey, from theatre to the altar, stands out as one of the most inspiring stories for the recruits in the Lord’s army. As a freshly minted medical doctor, he had several attractive choices before his foray into the evangelical ministry, but like the saying – God’s ways are different from man’s ways." Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was E/C and as I said on their talk, I don't think @Whimwhiz knew the history when they moved the article. Star Mississippi 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. I agree that most of the source use looks like puffery or just citing opinion pieces from the subject rather than independent coverage. It's possible there could be an angle for BLP notability in terms of political subjects, but that isn't looking clear here either. Since this would be the 4th time the article has been deleted if this AfD goes that way, this definitely needs to be salted as mentioned at the last AfD. KoA (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm seeing a ton of PROMO, but what is the status of this article from Ripples Nigeria? I feel like this is an RS that goes to GNG per my limited investigation into the publisher and the story's author. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As it's simply repeating what he said without any additional context, I don't think it's remotely independent. Star Mississippi 14:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it counts towards notability, but agree on that appraisal of the lack of independence. Thanks for the clarification. Will !vote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, previous AfDs, and above reply to my comment from Star Mississippi. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on the importance of him in Nigerian politics, this article, and the fact there are over 100 news pieces with his name in the title on ProQuest. Yes, making speeches that get noticed repeatedly by the national presses of Nigeria count towards notability whether you like it or not. That is significant coverage in multiple sources. I will be listing some sources in few. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a popular preacher with huge following. There are sources that establish their notability. For example source number one in the article can't be said to be a "promo" and source number six from ICIR where governor of a state reported him to the highest law enforcement officer (Inspector General of Police) is credible and not a "Promo". Again there are sources where the Nigerian ruling party presidential campaign council call for his arrest for his comments and response from different groups defending the preacher are "Promo". Cray04 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it can be used to boost Google search ratings. The flowery language used in sources doesn't help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At least when I was sorting through sources, those like the first source[1] amounted to WP:FART. There were a number of low quality news sources namedropping him, but the depth was severely lacking or needing more sources actually focusing on him to really clear WP:NBLP. The key problem I see is that sources presented so far don't really make the case for us on this person being notable in terms political or pastoral work. If something has changed since the last three deletions, that should be made more apparent here in order to reassess anything. KoA (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: more sources have been added. He is a notable personality with huge followers and I will present some sources which I strongly believe (based on my beginner knowledge of WP) are reliable and independent to establish notability. The subject is popular among the people and in the media, hence the reason for the “persistent disruption” to create a page where people can read about him. I am not very knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works (I am still learning) so I did not know that others had at different times attempted to create a page in his name and I felt that since there are tons of media reporting about him, he is eligible for an entry in Wikipedia. If there is anything promotional in the article that should be taken out. The subject is noted for being the founder and senior pastor of one of the largest church congregations in Nigeria with branches in other countries. He built the largest single church auditorium with 100,000 seat capacity. The subject has been a vocal voice on national issues. His sermons in his church are monitored and reported by the Nigerian press. Is an individual whose speech is often monitored and reported not of interest to the people? If he was not notable before now, at least his activism against the same faith presidential tick of the Nigerian ruling party was enough to lift the doubt about his notability. Let’s take a look at some sources: here [2] the subject endorsed a presidential candidate and a leading television channel picked it up immediately. Here [3] the subject urged Nigerian electoral commission to be transparent in the result collation process and this was widely reported. Here [4] civil society organization called on national security agencies to arrest the subject “for inciting comments in his sermon”. Would they have called on the security agencies to arrest the subject if he was not a popular figure? Here [5] a sitting governor vowed to federal cabinet minister that he would arrest the subject for inciting comment. These are high government officials discussing this individual. Here [6] this respected newspaper in Nigeria monitors the X (formerly Twitter) account of the subject and reports its activities. See the following media reporting about the subject [7][8][9] [10][11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Elefausty (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please disclose your WP:COI with regard to Enenche and how you happened to come back to editing after a long hiatus just to create this article. Please read WP:BIO for more on what makes a personal notable, which the closer here will make a decision on. Star Mississippi 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no special interest in the article but created it based on the subject's notability. And thanks for directing me to WP:BIO. I have read and understood that the subject meets the Basic Criteria which states that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". The multiple sources cited in the article combined indicate notability of the subject" and the second clause states that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" but in this instance, the multiple sources cited therein are not trivial because the subject of this article is the main subject in those sources cited in the article and can be clearly seen in the headlines of those media reporting about the subject. An individual's name appearing in the headlines of national press shows strong notability. If an individual is not notable, their names would never appear in the headlines. Please this should be taken into consideration. Elefausty (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think the article well establishes notability to a large extent. Subject is a well renowned pastor and televangelist in Nigeria. The sources cited also well meets WP:GNG Mevoelo (talk) 12:40, 02 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, before search brought up multiple sources from reliable secondary and independent publications. Other than the previous deletions, he is a notable televangelist. AllNotAll (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm less than convinced with a number of the keep !votes here, especially given the relative strength of the delete contributions. Relisting to hopefully establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I said I would, and then I forgot. But here are some sources: [16][17] (the largest political party in Nigeria calls for his arrest) and [18][19] (coverage by BBC with the former having a "Who is pastor Paul Eneche" section). I agree that most of what is online is superfluous. Regardless, the fact that literally every major newspaper (The Punch, Vangaurd, The Sun, and The Guardian) in Nigeria hangs on to his every word can not be overlooked. I urge some common sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He appears to be the pastor of a megachurch. As such, I would expect him to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• CU note: The article's creator, Elefausty, the extended confirmed account that was used to move the page, Whimwhiz, and one of the accounts !voting above, AllNotAll, are all the same person (or, at the very least, they are all editing from the same IP addresses as one another within minutes of one another - it's always possible that it's multiple people editing from a single location, one can never tell). I suspect that they are all David Eribe, but it's possible that they're socks of a different master who edits from the same ranges (there is a remarkable amount of abuse from those ranges). Certainly, their comments should be given no weight in this discussion, and the article would probably have been elligible for G5 deletion; I will leave it to whoever closes this discussion to make that determination however. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - G5 Creations by banned or blocked users. I was on the fence about this before. There appeared to be sufficient sources to pass GNG, although not enough attention was given to the fact that most of these were WP:PRIMARY. I tended to agree with Peterkingiron that the subject ought to be notable, and had not bothered researching to prove the point as it was looking like it was heading for keep. However, in light of the socking, I'll make the point that GNG requires secondary sources, and they have not been found. It really should be deleted under G5. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this article has 36 sources, and person appears to be notable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2023 (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.