787:, Could you at least read before replying me & not purposefully go off topic? The article isn’t blatantly promotional & never have I said so. The article in itself is not promotional but the problem is the sourcing, The ones in the article are not reliable. The three you just provided us with are blatant PR sponsored sources. & No I’m not missing any point, you mentioned three PR sponsored posts which automatically makes the sources unreliable, What am I missing here? & when has being listed in online sources(even reliable ones) that state “X People Are The People To Watch Out For in 2020”(any year) being a yardstick for notability? If anything it means they are up & coming, right? Or is there something blatantly glaring ongoing I’m not seeing? & What’s with the
708:. The problem is BASIC requires multiple reliable sources, the aforementioned sources are not reliable in this context as they all are literally PR sponsored. Furthermore on “winning awards”, the problem is winning an award in a non-notable category doesn’t count & furthermore even winning a “notable”” award doesn’t necessarily translate to automatic notability. An analogy would be me creating a Knowledge article for myself as I have won a notable award for playing basketball whilst at college. Judging from what we have learnt thus far & our experience wouldn’t that be an uniformed bizarre action on my part?
1402:
sourcing knowledge & analysis hadn’t significantly improved I won’t get the NPR flag but my exponential improvement was what eventually granted me that. Attack me all you want but your ineptitude at identifying reliable sources & inability to provide to this AFD reliable sources, it shows you have nothing to offer other than your attempt to assassinate my character is quite indicative of the obvious (non notability of subject of our discussion) & speaks volume of your person/character. Furthermore what do you intend to achieve by using my teacher’s (
902:. Per the discussion I had with them on their talk page, I think they're trying to contribute to the project in good faith, but maybe creating poorly sourced articles. Let's not drive good faith editors away from the project, because we can't do all the work alone, we need more editors on the project, especially Nigerian editors like us. Nigerian topics is really lacking on Knowledge and we need more hands and editors willing to stay on the project. —
662:
655:
647:
614:
606:
598:
569:
561:
553:
1732:. This is the same award the subject of our discussion has won which you yourself clarified that they're notable enough last year. How are we now going to take you by your words in this your dubious AfD nomination? Even though we are all aware that you spammed the Autopatrolled user rights by creating 25 articles only in December 2019, as can be seen
1345:
before nominating this article for deletion, we won't be here wasting our time. Stop driving away well meaning editors, especially
Nigerians editors away from the project. Not every Nigerian editor is engaging in UPE related activities or having a COI with the articles they write about. We still have
1175:
that prove subject is notable do let me know & no! the real reason for the back & forth is editors engaging in UPE having a vested interest in ensuring this article is retained at all cost. We know it when we see it. That aside as said earlier stated all I seek are three reliable sources that
703:
Asides the faulty sources used throughout the article, coupled with the undisclosed Paid/COI editing occurring in the article itself, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact) & you also imply that they
1569:
It's obvious that we can never get anywhere through this AfD discussion, but, I'll still tell you to stop driving good faith editors away from the project, especially good faith
Nigerian editors, not everyone is PAID or has a COI with an article they create. And mind you, when someone is challenging
1401:
And my knowledge on sourcing have greatly improved as my AFD log show. But if you continue to muddy the water & poison the well & aren’t going to provide us cogent three reliable sources for me to analyze i hereby rest my case & wait for community consensus. Furthermore like I said if my
1362:
Its not a good thing we are becoming petty about this. I don’t appreciate the mud slinging come from you & of course I myself have hit you hard which isn’t proper but if only you can provide me with three reliable sources we won’t be dragging this. How else can I request that you provide us with
1238:
to say last month about your inability to consistently assess sources accurately after you spent 6 months on his NPP school, while also noting that you're not fit for the NPP permissions, I don't think you're still qualified to analyze sources at this time. You're really making a mess of it, how can
1215:
I did perform a 'before' & No, I never think so(I only fight against
Nigerian UPE/COI editors and the articles they create) If good faith editors come & !vote a keep I’d assume utmost good faith. So please for the umpteenth time are you providing to this AFD, any three reliable sources that
1008:
which is almost 3 hours later so what are you talking about???? How is approximately a three hour difference “nominating an article almost immediately it was created” ? In any case I guess it’s safe to say we aren’t getting the three reliable sources we need to substantiate true notability. That’s
979:
search before you nominated this particular article for deletion. You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did? The mistake that you're making is thinking that every article nominated for deletion must
813:
search before nominating this article for deletion. The subject of our discussion has been nominated in 7 different notable awards, where she won three. You just added a UPE tag on the article that I've spent the whole day cleaning up and you're saying that you don't say that it's promotional. Just
944:
your reverse psychology would undoubtedly affect the unassuming passer by editor. I may be poking at a beehive with nominating this article for AFD & won’t be surprised when the ((Keep)) army start popping up. But I beg you, can you just stay on topic? (sourcing) & not purposefully go off
1056:
Don’t make this about me, rather make this about the sourcing & notability of the article. I’ve asked you more than once now to bring your three best sources to prove subject is notable but you always circumnavigate that. If my fighting UPE/COI editing amongst
Nigerian editors would keep bad
1363:
three reliable sources to substantiate nor prove their notability? That’s all I require & no I’m not driving away good faith editors, the only ones leaving are the ones who I nabbed engaging in UPE & have no other choice to leave since they clearly weren’t here to build an encyclopedia.
1216:
prove subject of article is truly notable? As the first 3 you provided(that I have analyzed above) are clearly unreliable as they are blatant PR sponsored posts or are you going to keep on evading a very simple request? Thank you for your time I think I am done here for now.
1554:
to ensure the article is retained at all cost(Per your usual advertising of your
Knowledge service on social as Yunshi once nabbed you & removed your Autopatrolled rights just endeavor to disclose it & quit badgering this AFD with your personal attacks against me.
1035:
Don't be the reason why we don't have too many
Nigerian editors that wish to stay back on the project. Nominating every poorly written article for deletion is not the way forward. When the subject of an article is probably notable through a thoroughly
1194:
Now I truly understand your problem, you think that any editor that challenges you on an AfD has an interest on a particular topic. I'm really disappointed in you for thinking such. I'll keep on saying it, I don't think that you truly performed a
1288:, my knowledge on sourcing really greatly improved hence me getting the NPR flag & a view of my AFD log shows I definitely know what I’m doing, you on the other hand have been caught advertising your services on social media hence
1243:
search, before nominating an article for deletion and thus driving good faith editors away from the project, especially well meaning
Nigerian editors. Now, I've to say that your actions are now getting more disruptive on the project.
1826:
above. I should also say for all to observe that my last 3 comments have been constructive & neutral. I already have taken my share of responsibility for the bloodbath this has turn out to be. Furthermore I’ve only requested for
1672:(of which subject of our article has never won) would be the African equivalent to the Oscars. My issue had always been with the sources used which are mostly unreliable as they are blatant sponsored posts. Subject at best possesses
1838:
other than vehement personal attacks. I have no vested interest(and have never had) in the creation nor deletion of this article or any other article hence I’m never afraid to do what is right. Thank you for the mediation captain.
1587:
Since I've been pinged to this discussion twice, I'm collapsing this discussion. Most of it is not about
Oluwasina. If there are concerns about editor behavior take it up on their talk page or an appropriate conduct forum. Best,
1740:
to oppress good faith new editors and boost your ego. What has happened since then, why haven't you created any new article since obtaining the user rights in
January?? I could go on and on, but, let me stop here for now.
201:
1570:
your hoax AfD nomination, that doesn't mean they must have a COI with the subject. I thought you know better? Please, don't tell me that you've wasted your whole four years here on the project, learning nothing. —
1306:
Your character on
Knowledge has nothing to write home about, your recent actions are very much disruptive on the project and you're forcing well meaning editors, especially Nigerian editors to exit the project.
949:? I’ve been involved with nabbing Nigerian UPE editors & those involved in sockpuppetry too long to tell when something isn’t right, we both know no matter how much I try to show you this is a case of
1484:
I'll keep on saying it, your assessment of sources is equal to zero. For someone that has stayed a whole four years on the project, I really expect much better, but, instead, you're proving me wrong. —
1379:“It also makes writing the rest of this difficult. I do not think you are a good fit for the New Page Reviewer permission at this time. I think you have good instincts about notability. However,
265:
1436:
The ones I analyzed above shows my analyzing sourcing ability is very much apt. Point to me which analysis is wrong? You can’t, because I’m very much correct as all are blatant sponsored posts.
880:
I’ve told you winning an award or multiple awards doesn’t auto confer notability, especially for non relevant categories. When you are ready to bring your best three sources, give me a ping.
285:
945:
topic? But before we commence on discussing sourcing, what did you just say? That you had what discussion with whom? The creator of this article? this shabby, shady dubious looking one
665:
Just like the aforementioned analyzed sources, here again we have a list of 30 “young hot actresses to watch out for in 2020”. giving us next to no significant coverage as required by
1128:
This your award analysis, including the ones about the sourcing is very funny, I just had a great laugh. I thought you said the subject of our discussion didn't win any award per this
768:
If an article is a bit promotional, but the subject of the article is notable, we as New Page Reviewers shouldn't rush into nominating it for deletion, that's what cleanup is for. —
838:& the lot. Furthermore, ref bombing the article with other mirror articles to create a facade/illusion of “ocean of sources” doesn’t do anything to prove she is notable per
1144:
Your cheap attempt to defend this wrongful AfD nomination of yours is not really yielding any fruit, if you had performed a before search, we won't be here wasting our time. —
1161:
520:
195:
1406:) constructive criticism against me? Which aided me a lot in my knowledge on sourcing as my AFD log easily shows. That’s classic poisoning the well. I hereby rest my case.
1420:
You haven't improved in assessing sources, it's very clear through this ongoing discussion. Your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is still not there. —
748:
Here on Knowledge, we're trying to keep notable articles and not necessarily nominating them for deletion for the fun of it. I don't really think that you performed a
154:
1040:
search, cleanup is really required, I'll keep on telling you this, I don't think that you conducted any before search before nominating this article for deletion. —
1646:
is interested in keeping the page that he looks for some Nigerian sources. If this person has won the Nigerian equivalent of an Oscar this shouldn't be difficult.
365:
1099:(Probably the only award worth considering but isn’t sufficient to demonstrate notability as winning awards like I said doesn’t confer automatic notability. Per
1791:, it would be best for you to both step away from this AfD. Perhaps unwatch it. You've both stated your position and now it's time to let others comment. Best,
728:, you're even missing the point, the few sources I provided that you analyzed, reveals that she might be notable. Go through the current version of the article
345:
325:
305:
1284:
Classic deflection tactics by mudding the water, poisoning the well & attacking my character. Let’s stay on topic at hand here. Thank you. Furthermore @
101:
1454:. Stop praising yourself for the hoax you did up there. Please, don't tell me that you spent a whole 6 months on NPP school learning nothing in general. —
86:
732:. I believe you're not really following the extensive cleanup and major additions I did today on the article. Go through it and reply me, I'm waiting. —
617:
Just as the first source analyzed by same media above this article still doesn’t discuss her with in-depth significant coverage as required to satisfy
1857:
1070:
The Yoruba movie industry isn’t one & the same as the Nigerian Nollywood movie industry, thus winning Yoruba Fast Rising Actress does nothing for
1265:
590:
488:
393:
686:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using
161:
1550:& provide us with three reliable sources that prove subject of article is notable if you can’t just say so, if you have a COI/or have been
998:
You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did?
127:
122:
131:
1132:. It's good that this discussion is finally going somewhere. A subject that was nominated in 7 different awards and won three wholly passes
545:
483:
389:
1669:
1816:, You couldn’t be more correct. I’d so & only make further replies or comments if they are going to be constructive ones coming from
1130:
You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact)
862:
You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact)
807:
You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact)
114:
1856:
Yeah, I see passing mentions, I see some pretty dodgy sourcing. Can't say the same wrt third-party, in-depth secondary sources though.
1726:“Hey do you think the Special Recoginntion Award by City People Entertainment Awards is not notable enough? Come on discuss with me”.
1611:— It should be noted that subject of article is supposed to be an actress & singer but doesn’t fulfill any single criterion from
856:
After going through the current state of the article and seeing notable awards that the subject of our discussion won, thus passing
1168:
defense for an article you created (UPE) but it was ultimately proved to be a flawed rationale. Look If you are ready to bring any
412:. When I've time, I'll do some cleanup on the article. Apart from the UPE concerns, it looks like an article that should be kept. —
1651:
401:
216:
183:
81:
74:
17:
1142:
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
1864:
1834:
be presented for analysis to this AFD as the first three he provided were unreliable sources but have gotten nothing from
409:
1690:
in our discussion above, I also share responsibility in how our conversation degenerated in the manner in which it did.
690:
405:
1823:
1665:
1647:
95:
91:
177:
1733:
564:
obviously not reliable as the source merely promotes the upcoming entertainers who are clearly not notable enough
1910:
1057:
faith editors then fine by me. Now let us analyze something else, this time let’s analyze the awards she has won.
639:
591:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/371150-10-nollywood-starlets-to-watch-out-for-in-2020.html
493:
489:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/371150-10-nollywood-starlets-to-watch-out-for-in-2020.html
397:
40:
1893:
1872:
1848:
1800:
1779:
1752:
1699:
1655:
1628:
1597:
1581:
1564:
1495:
1479:
1465:
1445:
1431:
1415:
1396:
1372:
1357:
1336:
1318:
1301:
1279:
1255:
1225:
1210:
1189:
1155:
1119:
1092:
1051:
1030:
991:
970:
913:
889:
875:
851:
825:
800:
779:
763:
743:
717:
462:
423:
377:
357:
337:
317:
297:
277:
257:
56:
1737:
842:
it’s indicative of the inverse like I said. Bring your best three sources to this AFD & let us analyze it.
173:
1103:, in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject is used to demonstrate notability.)
118:
1749:
1578:
1492:
1462:
1428:
1393:
1354:
1315:
1276:
1252:
1207:
1152:
1048:
988:
910:
872:
822:
776:
760:
740:
525:
459:
420:
1844:
1775:
1695:
1624:
1560:
1475:
1441:
1411:
1368:
1332:
1297:
1235:
1221:
1185:
1115:
1088:
1026:
966:
885:
847:
796:
713:
373:
353:
333:
313:
293:
273:
253:
223:
834:. A before was conducted, & all i saw & I’m still seeing is subject of article being included in
546:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/255388-top-five-yoruba-movie-stars-watch-2018.html
484:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/255388-top-five-yoruba-movie-stars-watch-2018.html
1906:
1638:
I think it would be best if editors discussed whether or not the awards she has won gets her a pass via
1268:. I have no other thing to say, but your recent activities is becoming more disruptive on the project. —
110:
62:
36:
1292:
taking away your Autopatrolled right. Hence I am justified to say you are a/anUPE editor. Thanks again.
946:
248:
search shows 0 evidence of notability. This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor.
530:
1796:
1767:
1593:
831:
572:
Source doesn’t discuss subject of article with significant coverage she is discussed very briefly.
209:
1001:
980:
be deleted. Cleanup is required in some cases, when the subject of the article is truly notable. —
232:
Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy
1835:
1788:
1742:
1643:
1571:
1485:
1455:
1421:
1386:
1347:
1308:
1285:
1269:
1245:
1200:
1145:
1041:
981:
903:
895:
865:
815:
784:
769:
753:
733:
452:
413:
189:
1880:, per nom, for failing notability guidelines for various entertainer categories and above all
1840:
1784:
1771:
1691:
1687:
1677:
1620:
1556:
1471:
1437:
1407:
1364:
1328:
1293:
1217:
1181:
1111:
1084:
1075:
1022:
962:
950:
881:
843:
792:
788:
729:
725:
709:
436:
369:
349:
329:
309:
289:
269:
249:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1905:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1889:
1705:
1639:
1616:
1612:
1342:
1261:
1240:
1196:
1165:
1137:
1133:
1071:
1037:
1018:
976:
954:
857:
810:
749:
440:
245:
241:
237:
1005:
1828:
1169:
953:
you’d never be objective so let’s stay on topic & try to stop digressing. I’ve done a
705:
444:
1813:
1792:
1673:
1589:
1551:
1539:
1538:
shows my veracity when it comes to sourcing, so like I said stop attacking me by using
1403:
1231:
836:
list articles, PR sponsored posts, Mere announcements, brief mentions in trivial things
1264:
who has spent 5 years on the project of sockpuppetery and UPE related activities, per
400:. I also got to find out that she won Fast Rising Actress of the Year (Yoruba) at the
1881:
1763:
1547:
1324:
1177:
1100:
1079:
958:
898:, created this article to receive payments or compensation, just like you said above
839:
666:
618:
536:
448:
233:
1543:
1535:
1831:
1377:
You can't be telling me to provide you with three sources when Barkeep49 said that
1289:
1172:
1074:
as it isn’t fantastic nor prestigious and at best is a nod at this being a case of
1010:
53:
1728:, they didn't answer you and on 17 January 2020, you reverted them as can be seen
148:
957:& ive come up empty so please provide to this AFD three reliable sources per
443:. Some other sources I added to the article currently shows that she also passes
1885:
1709:
1014:
814:
nominating an article for deletion doesn't qualify it for deletion instantly. —
1180:. The three you provided above have been analyzed & are very much flawed.
640:
http://www.citypeopleonline.com/30-hot-yoruba-young-actresses-to-watch-in-2020
494:
http://www.citypeopleonline.com/30-hot-yoruba-young-actresses-to-watch-in-2020
439:. She received nominations in 7 separate notable awards and won 3, satisfying
1000:” The article was created on the 11th of July at exactly 14:44(2:44) as seen
1239:
someone claiming they know what they're doing fail to perform a thorough
621:
as Subject isn’t the focus of the article but included in a list article
1260:
You even went to the extent of accusing a well established editor like
1818:
1758:
1682:
1004:& was nominated for deletion by me at exactly 17:16(5:16) as seen
1385:
You're not yet qualified to accurately access sources at this time. —
1822:
or constructive inputs from third party colleagues like I replied @
1381:
your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is not there
435:
and after extensive cleanup and major additions, it is now in this
1009:
fine, it’s non existent is why you cannot get them & without
752:
search before nominating this particular article for deletion. —
1901:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
388:
From the search I conducted, I think she might be notable, per
236:. She is also & actor & singer but falls short of both
996:
yet again you purposefully digress. Per your comments above “
900:
This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor
860:, do you still own up to this statement that you made above,
1470:
quit with the personal attacks & try to stay on point.
961:. I personally couldn’t find any. Thank you for your time.
1642:#1. I think this is plausible. It might also be useful if
266:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
704:
have enough google hits to qualify at the very least per
1720:. You approached them on their talk page as can be seen
894:
And also, I don't think that the creator of the article
474:— So you have provided us with three sources in this AFD
286:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
1729:
1721:
1713:
432:
144:
140:
136:
208:
1199:
search before nominating this article for deletion. —
938:
Extended discussion more about editors than AfD topic
1162:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Onyeka Nnadozie Eze
1109:Premier example of a blatant non notable category)
501:So let’s get to analyzing look at the table below
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1913:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1704:Shame on you Celestina007. On 24 December 2019,
364:Note: This discussion has been included in the
344:Note: This discussion has been included in the
324:Note: This discussion has been included in the
304:Note: This discussion has been included in the
284:Note: This discussion has been included in the
264:Note: This discussion has been included in the
609:The same as my rationale in the first source.
222:
8:
1712:article you created yourself as can be seen
809:, it reveals that you didn't even perform a
366:list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
346:list of Africa-related deletion discussions
933:
504:
363:
343:
326:list of Music-related deletion discussions
323:
306:list of Women-related deletion discussions
303:
283:
263:
1546:is open for all to see. So Quit with the
1542:’s constructive criticism against me. My
1021:so how can we then ascertain notability?
1140:says that article should be kept if the
1068:Yoruba Fast Rising Actress of the Year (
936:
1725:
1717:
1451:
1378:
1141:
1129:
1107:Best use of Nigerian Food in a Movie (
899:
861:
806:
7:
1708:removed the awards you added to the
1097:Yoruba Best Actress in Leading Role
1078:seeing as subject fails to satisfy
1017:is impossible. Subject also has no
24:
1676:& this is a classic case of
1668:, thank you for your input. The
1346:good and well meaning editors. —
660:
653:
645:
612:
604:
596:
567:
559:
551:
87:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
805:With this your comment here,
410:2015 Best of Nollywood Awards
402:2019 City People Movie Awards
1341:Only if you had conducted a
431:I found the article in this
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1930:
1680:it’s a shame myself &
1164:you tried to use the same
661:
654:
646:
613:
605:
597:
568:
560:
552:
1894:18:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1873:16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1849:13:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1801:13:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1780:12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1753:11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1700:09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1656:00:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1629:00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1598:15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1582:14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1565:13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1496:13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1480:13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1466:13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1446:13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1432:13:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1416:13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1397:12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1373:12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1358:12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1337:12:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1319:12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1302:12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1280:11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1256:11:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1226:11:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1211:11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1190:10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1156:09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1136:, let me remind you that
1120:07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1093:07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1052:00:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1031:00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
992:00:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
971:00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
914:23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
890:23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
876:23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
852:22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
826:22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
801:22:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
780:22:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
764:22:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
744:22:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
718:21:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
684:
510:Source assessment table:
507:
463:20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
424:01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
378:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
358:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
338:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
318:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
298:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
278:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
258:16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
57:21:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1903:Please do not modify it.
1736:, just like you've been
32:Please do not modify it.
1824:AlessandroTiandelli333
1666:AlessandroTiandelli333
1648:AlessandroTiandelli333
408:and was nominated for
1738:collecting other hats
1450:Your analysis is not
531:Significant coverage?
390:this source from 2018
75:Articles for deletion
1718:“non-notable awards”
535:Count source toward
691:source assess table
1644:User:Nnadigoodluck
1323:Can you quit with
975:You didn't do any
896:User:Oluwaseun1111
111:Bunkunmi Oluwasina
63:Bunkunmi Oluwasina
1604:
1603:
1160:In this AFD here:
701:
700:
697:
642:
593:
548:
380:
360:
340:
320:
300:
280:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
1921:
1870:
1862:
1832:reliable sources
1821:
1764:Personal attacks
1762:, Quit with the
1761:
1746:
1685:
1575:
1548:Personal attacks
1489:
1459:
1425:
1390:
1351:
1325:personal attacks
1312:
1273:
1249:
1204:
1173:reliable sources
1149:
1045:
999:
985:
934:
907:
869:
819:
773:
757:
737:
695:
689:
685:
677:
676:
664:
663:
657:
656:
649:
648:
638:
630:
629:
616:
615:
608:
607:
600:
599:
589:
581:
580:
571:
570:
563:
562:
555:
554:
544:
505:
456:
417:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1911:deletion review
1865:
1858:
1817:
1757:
1744:
1681:
1674:bare notability
1605:
1573:
1487:
1457:
1452:“very much apt”
1423:
1388:
1349:
1310:
1271:
1247:
1202:
1147:
1043:
997:
983:
939:
905:
867:
817:
771:
755:
735:
693:
687:
672:
671:
650:sponsored post
625:
624:
601:sponsored post
576:
575:
556:sponsored post
512:
454:
415:
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1927:
1925:
1916:
1915:
1897:
1896:
1875:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1659:
1658:
1632:
1631:
1602:
1601:
1585:
1584:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1258:
1123:
1122:
1105:
1095:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
941:
940:
937:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
830:Quit with the
766:
746:
699:
698:
682:
681:
669:
658:
651:
643:
635:
634:
622:
610:
602:
594:
586:
585:
573:
565:
557:
549:
541:
540:
533:
528:
523:
518:
514:
513:
508:
503:
502:
499:
498:
497:
491:
486:
478:
477:
476:
475:
466:
465:
426:
382:
381:
361:
341:
321:
301:
281:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1926:
1914:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1899:
1898:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1868:
1863:
1861:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1837:
1836:Nnadigoodluck
1833:
1830:
1825:
1820:
1819:Nnadigoodluck
1815:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1789:Nnadigoodluck
1786:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1759:Nnadigoodluck
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1747:
1745:Nnadigoodluck
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1683:Nnadigoodluck
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1574:Nnadigoodluck
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1488:Nnadigoodluck
1483:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1458:Nnadigoodluck
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1424:Nnadigoodluck
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1389:Nnadigoodluck
1384:
1382:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1350:Nnadigoodluck
1344:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1311:Nnadigoodluck
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:Nnadigoodluck
1283:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1272:Nnadigoodluck
1267:
1266:this SPI case
1263:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1248:Nnadigoodluck
1242:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1203:Nnadigoodluck
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1148:Nnadigoodluck
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1044:Nnadigoodluck
1039:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:verifiability
1012:
1007:
1003:
995:
994:
993:
990:
987:
986:
984:Nnadigoodluck
978:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
943:
942:
935:
915:
912:
909:
908:
906:Nnadigoodluck
901:
897:
893:
892:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
874:
871:
870:
868:Nnadigoodluck
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
824:
821:
820:
818:Nnadigoodluck
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:Nnadigoodluck
783:
782:
781:
778:
775:
774:
772:Nnadigoodluck
767:
765:
762:
759:
758:
756:Nnadigoodluck
751:
747:
745:
742:
739:
738:
736:Nnadigoodluck
731:
727:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
692:
683:
680:
675:
670:
668:
659:
652:
644:
641:
637:
636:
633:
628:
623:
620:
611:
603:
595:
592:
588:
587:
584:
579:
574:
566:
558:
550:
547:
543:
542:
538:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
516:
515:
511:
506:
500:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
481:
480:
479:
473:
470:
469:
468:
467:
464:
461:
458:
457:
455:Nnadigoodluck
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:current state
434:
430:
427:
425:
422:
419:
418:
416:Nnadigoodluck
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1902:
1900:
1877:
1866:
1859:
1853:
1841:Celestina007
1785:Celestina007
1772:Celestina007
1743:
1692:Celestina007
1635:
1621:Celestina007
1608:
1586:
1572:
1557:Celestina007
1486:
1472:Celestina007
1456:
1438:Celestina007
1422:
1408:Celestina007
1387:
1380:
1365:Celestina007
1348:
1329:Celestina007
1309:
1294:Celestina007
1270:
1246:
1218:Celestina007
1201:
1182:Celestina007
1146:
1112:Celestina007
1108:
1098:
1085:Celestina007
1069:
1042:
1023:Celestina007
982:
963:Celestina007
904:
882:Celestina007
866:
844:Celestina007
835:
816:
793:Celestina007
770:
754:
734:
726:Celestina007
710:Celestina007
702:
678:
673:
631:
626:
582:
577:
521:Independent?
509:
471:
453:
428:
414:
385:
370:Celestina007
350:Celestina007
330:Celestina007
310:Celestina007
290:Celestina007
270:Celestina007
250:Celestina007
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1710:Liz Anjorin
1706:Scope creep
1262:Danidamiobi
789:ref bombing
406:this source
398:this source
394:this source
196:free images
1768:aspersions
1678:WP:TOOSOON
1234:will have
1076:WP:TOOSOON
951:WP:TOOSOON
947:right here
832:aspersions
433:poor state
1907:talk page
1814:Barkeep49
1793:Barkeep49
1724:, saying
1716:, citing
1688:not civil
1640:WP:ANYBIO
1617:WP:SINGER
1613:WP:NACTOR
1590:Barkeep49
1540:Barkeep49
1404:Barkeep49
1343:WP:BEFORE
1241:WP:BEFORE
1232:Barkeep49
1197:WP:BEFORE
1166:WP:ANYBIO
1138:WP:ANYBIO
1134:WP:ANYBIO
1072:WP:ANYBIO
1038:WP:BEFORE
1019:WP:SIGCOV
977:WP:BEFORE
858:WP:ANYBIO
811:WP:BEFORE
750:WP:BEFORE
526:Reliable?
441:WP:ANYBIO
242:WP:SINGER
238:WP:NACTOR
37:talk page
1909:or in a
1176:satisfy
445:WP:BASIC
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
1636:Comment
1609:Comment
1552:WP:PAID
1544:AFD Log
1536:AFD Log
1290:Yunshui
517:Source
472:Comment
386:Comment
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
1886:Ifnord
1882:WP:GNG
1878:Delete
1854:Delete
1766:&
1615:&
1178:WP:GNG
1101:WP:GNG
1080:WP:GNG
959:WP:GNG
955:before
840:WP:GNG
667:WP:GNG
619:WP:GNG
449:WP:GNG
246:before
240:&
234:WP:GNG
174:Google
132:delete
50:delete
1869:erial
1829:three
1686:were
1670:AMVCA
1170:three
1011:WP:RS
706:BASIC
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
1890:talk
1845:talk
1797:talk
1776:talk
1750:🇳🇬
1734:here
1730:here
1722:here
1714:here
1696:talk
1652:talk
1625:talk
1594:talk
1579:🇳🇬
1561:talk
1493:🇳🇬
1476:talk
1463:🇳🇬
1442:talk
1429:🇳🇬
1412:talk
1394:🇳🇬
1369:talk
1355:🇳🇬
1333:talk
1316:🇳🇬
1298:talk
1277:🇳🇬
1253:🇳🇬
1236:this
1222:talk
1208:🇳🇬
1186:talk
1153:🇳🇬
1116:talk
1089:talk
1049:🇳🇬
1027:talk
1006:here
1002:here
989:🇳🇬
967:talk
911:🇳🇬
886:talk
873:🇳🇬
848:talk
823:🇳🇬
797:talk
777:🇳🇬
761:🇳🇬
741:🇳🇬
730:here
714:talk
460:🇳🇬
447:and
429:Keep
421:🇳🇬
404:per
396:and
374:talk
354:talk
334:talk
314:talk
294:talk
274:talk
254:talk
244:. A
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
1534:My
1230:If
864:? —
537:GNG
451:. —
224:TWL
153:– (
1892:)
1884:.
1860:——
1847:)
1799:)
1787:,
1778:)
1770:.
1698:)
1654:)
1627:)
1619:.
1596:)
1563:)
1478:)
1444:)
1414:)
1383:.”
1371:)
1335:)
1327:.
1300:)
1224:)
1188:)
1118:)
1091:)
1082:.)
1029:)
1013:,
969:)
888:)
850:)
799:)
791:?
716:)
694:}}
688:{{
679:No
632:No
583:No
539:?
392:,
376:)
368:.
356:)
348:.
336:)
328:.
316:)
308:.
296:)
288:.
276:)
268:.
256:)
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.
1888:(
1867:S
1843:(
1795:(
1774:(
1741:—
1694:(
1664:@
1650:(
1623:(
1592:(
1559:(
1474:(
1440:(
1410:(
1367:(
1331:(
1307:—
1296:(
1244:—
1220:(
1184:(
1114:(
1087:(
1025:(
965:(
884:(
846:(
795:(
712:(
696:.
674:✘
627:✘
578:✘
496:.
372:(
352:(
332:(
312:(
292:(
272:(
252:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.