Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu

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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu

[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)

Page is advertising. It was deleted before in 2017, and does not seem to have been improved. Just getting a patent is not notable, it has to become a real product/method heavily used. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:First off, most of the inventions shown on the page are dated AFTER 2017, showing that it has been tremendously improved from 2017 to 2024. I am wondering how you did not see that. Getting a patent is one thing but being mentioned by two succeeding presidents in reputable national newspapers does not seem to me that the subject is non-notable. The page is not advertising as there is no other way to show his inventions other than the tone used, unless you can provide a sample sentence for writing about inventors. His biogas is heavily used in Nigerian prisons to generate electricity and it was in partnership with no other than the Federal Government of Nigeria. There are more than twenty indepth national newspapers which describes his inventions too. So I am wondering how his notability is an issue. Royalrumblebee (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering on G11 speedy, however he is notable and i believe that the article just needs to be cleaned up and have advertising removed. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't get the deletion. I suppose the advert has been removed or still at a least look. However, WP:GNG requires that the article must have covered by reliable sources that are also verifiable. All I can see per WP:NGRS in the sources to show this article meets our general notability guidelines and for creative professionals. I won't say "keep" or "delete" but mostly suggest clean up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion about nomination. First it is worth remembering that anyone can submit a patent, just as anyone can submit an abstract for a talk, the current ref [11]. Existence does not make the patents or work notable, there has to be reputable independent secondary evidence of this, of which there are none here, just requotes of material from him.
Secondly, claims need to be appropriate and consistent with established science. For instance the claim "single electrons and lone pairs are the major sources of toxicity in elements and compounds" is both a circular reference to his own work, and scientifically deeply unsound. Many other statements are scientifically very unsound (WP:FRINGE). If they were sound then there would be independent sources from reputable scientific journals to back them up, of which there are none.

Thirdly, references must at least be consistent with and support the claims. The article has the invalid science "vapor-like water that emanates from ice is another state of water different from vapor which emanates from hot water" sourced to [16] (which should be [18]) which is a primary source, 100% fringe science published in a disreputable journal.

Finally, Notability depends upon reliable, independent sources, and I see none of that here, just a lot of unsupported claims, reproductions of what he claims, masses of awful science (WP:FRINGE), and advertising/puffery. This is not WP:CREATIVE, claims have to be verifiable and not fringe (WP:FRINGE).
Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the patents is sourced using the standard {{patent}} template, or better the standard {{cite patent}} template. As such the claims that they exist is unverifiable. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His fire proof paint is known offline. The application of his claims is largely recounted in the sources here. I'd say wiki articles about the sources show their reliability as per WP:GNG. Don't know how thick is his science or theory. Removing unsound scientific claims but retaining his verified applications would do.
Diamondsee (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (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.