Deletion of Marksman Ijiomah

Comment: per nom, could have been CSD G11, fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Seems to me that the subject fails  requirements, as the sources seem to be only either passing mentions (e.g. about sponsorships) or not of suitable quality, and I couldn't find anything else substantial with a BEFORE-style search. I'm watchlisting this AfD discussion, as I may be wrong about quality of the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I created this article because I was fascinated by the philanthropy of Marksman Ijiomah. When I Googled and found out that he was a billionaire running an international conglomerate and wasn’t on Wikipedia, I decided a few days ago to make a biographical entry. With Newspapers published in Nigeria|national dailies in Nigeria like This Day, Sun Newspapers, and National Asset writing about him, as well as several other news sites, I believed both the acts and sources were genuine enough for notability. Should editors feel that he fails , and the sources used in this article are promotional, I wouldn’t put up any defense. I have nothing to lose, save the time I have put into writing it. To be clear, I do not know Marksman Ijiomah, neither have I or anyone I know personally benefitted from his philanthropy, or expect to get any reward from him. Tagging this article  is reasonable and understandable for the purpose of consensus, but the nominator referring to me as a UPE editor in an edit summary on the article because he/she was emotional about the death of someone mentioned in the article, whom the subject paid medical bills for (which was also reported by no less a medium than BBC), is enough insult to the times I decided to sit up and write researched articles here. How does one profit from the death of another by citing an act of generosity that was made when the dead person was alive. Is there a guideline requiring editors to be selective of the published facts they include in articles so they don’t offend emotional editors? The nominator is forcing me to think he/she either has an axe to grind with the subject or has an unrevealed vested interest
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:G11)