826:--Fails GNG/ NACADEMIC but manages to brush very close to the borderline.All that I see are passing trivial memtions in a large number of sources that covers NITDA rather than Pantami.Some sources seem too hyperbolic and/or too promotional to be non-paid non-promo-spam.But, checking whether they meet RS criterion or not were plainly difficult.The recieved awards (awarded by newsgroups, corps etc.) are crap and as such adds zero notability.The improvements by Aditya were great but it has not sadly altered the coefficient of notability for me to a great extent.Also, media penetration in Nigeria is fairly great and there is no scope of laxities based on systemic bias et al.
788:
pass on GNG even after the changes. So it seems reasonable to think that some other users might think this is still insufficient. I agree that it's trending towards a keep result, but I think another relist would allow a clearer consensus to form, and it can always be closed before a week if the trend continues.----
808:
After all the improvements, I still am not sure if this passes notability (though I would not worry about passing mentions, as there are hundreds of articles that covers him, and many more interviews of him). The claims to fame do not look as solid as I would like them to be (though he certainly is
292:
It doesn't need to have evidence for notability to pass CSD-A7, just any assertion of significance which is in any way plausible. In this case a number of claims for significance have been made, some of which are marginally credible. Deletion for lack of notability is a higher standard than speedy
1087:
efforts, I changed position. My reply to your comment is only to bring to light what policy/guideline actually say after I actually saw you give one non policy/guideline-based "delete!" big recognition. (You can reread your comment). So if this resulted in kept, your work and other editors surely
787:
in the eyes of the delete !voters, and it would be unfair to assume their position has changed merely based on how other delete !voters responded. Also the nominator's new !vote was only a "weak keep", endorsed by another user's "weak keep", and it admitted that the article was still a borderline
843:@Godric I agree with you that the media coverage in Nigeria has been fairly good since the 2010s, but it depends on the profession. NITDA are more of a scholarly governmental body. Nigerian media houses are not interested in such, because it will not drive traffic to their web portal.
1088:
will count, so I am not belittling it. Second, I actually know almost all SNGs are more stringent than GNG and I didn't say the opposite in my reply. I don't know whether you really understand me. There's big difference between my word " supersede" and (be more) "stringent". Thanks –
445:
I have tried that, but to be sincere it dawned on me that will mean complete rewrite and cannot be done in hurry. Small reorganizing cannot convince people to change their !vote here before this AfD closes. The article content and tone is clearly strange and largely unwanted.
1120:
I wanted this article deleted because it was created by a COI editor, but it has been rewritten from the scratch to an encyclopedic level by many experienced editors. Subject seem to marginally pass WP:NPOLITICIAN/WP:NACADEMIC as the head of NITDA. Changing to
809:
no more a one-hit-wonder). The media hyperbole is also suspect (besides I can't read Hausa or Fulani, and have no idea of reliability of
Nigerian media). That is the reason I am waiting anxiously to see which way the wind blows as far as this discussion goes.
514:, just the way this article is crafted makes reorganizing it more tedious than writing new, that is why no need to contest anything especially if one has no available free time. Even me when I saw it I think it can be CSD'd, as it is obvious there's smack of
554:. The article is much improved (thanks, Uanfala!) but I couldn't find sources other than about how he's taking over NITDA and (from government propaganda sources) how amazingly wonderful he will make it be. So while there's enough coverage, it still fails
603:
I have done what I could. He looks like a marginally notable academic/civil servant/cleric/author. If kept, the article will need a properly capped title, and the infobox will need some work. Ping me, and I will do that job. Thanks
427:, the current article is a dire example of the “CV” trend on Knowledge (this in not LinkedIn). However, the actual topic does seem to pass our notability criteria. But who can summon the energy to completely rewrite the article?
953:
at the same time. furthermore he is not only
Academic, (which you admit too) he's not even well known in that field but he received wider coverage for his religious activities and now current job. Second; still from
774:, the "recent" improvements were made by Aditya Kabir over ten days ago and subsequent to that several editors, including the nominator, have changed their !votes. I'm not sure I see the need for relisting here. –
169:
542:. I've trimmed down the article, reducing it to a two-sentence stub that only documents his position at the government IT agency. For other possible claims to notability, please refer to the article's history. –
320:
783:
I relisted mainly because after looking at many of the added sources, a lot of the coverage of
Pantami seems to be name drops, passing mentions, and short pieces. This may not be sufficient to meet
645:, which is arguably the more important test. I still have some concerns about the level of hyperbole in the article... I imagine that some of the awards that are listed are of limited significance.
366:
and remember to always add references. There is a strong claim of significance, but the COI editor didn't add any reference so I think it pass for speedy deletion. Poorly written BLP article.
914:, though you may consider that he is not just an academic. But, it is interesting that the first fresh !vote in a longtime is a straight Delete. Anxious to find what eventually will happen.
959:"...the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university,
122:
970:
511:
163:
235:
867:
it is not appropriate for you to heavily redact your comment after someone has already replied to it. Now you made his replies to look contextles. Please use ]] or
255:
933:
and that's the truth. Now you admit he does meet GNG, so it doesn't matter whether 1 or 10 new fresh !votes say delete, delete, delete especially vague
1019:
I will be probably pruning the article and it's sources in the coming days based on rel. of source, encyclopedicness etc. and re-evaluate the article.
129:
95:
90:
385:
The subject is notable but the article was made in unrescuable shape. I tried to rewrite it but that will means making it anew entirely
794:
760:
99:
605:
973:. I initially supported deleting this article not because I am afraid she'll not meet Knowledge notability but because it t was in
82:
608:
for all the editing, writing on something I have no clue of I really needed someone to lend hand. You are the best. Also thanks
17:
405:
Changed mind, because the article has been greatly improved by user below me and others, it is no longer in its former shape.
184:
995:
a more stringent set of requirements than GNG. "Bitterly" was a silly word to use. By the way, would you mind !voting again?
363:
969:. This quote further shows why your " bitterly fails" is not correct. He is currently director of notable government agency
151:
901:
1051:
1020:
1007:
827:
328:
263:
243:
895:
740:
674:
282:
1153:
362:: Might be notable, but the present state of the article is not allowed on Knowledge. Article creator should use
277:. I am quite surprised my Speedy tag was removed. It's obviously self promotion with no evidence for notability.
145:
40:
563:
587:
are not even deletion criteria. Can someone tell me, under which policy/guideline we should be deleting this?
1134:
1111:
1097:
1058:
1045:
1027:
1014:
1001:
986:
920:
880:
852:
834:
815:
798:
778:
764:
731:
726:
717:
695:
665:
624:
595:
567:
546:
530:
505:
472:
458:
436:
417:
397:
375:
352:
332:
313:
286:
267:
247:
227:
141:
64:
937:
delete !vote of "delete fails GNG" without showing how they failed it. I disagree with your statement "...
1033:
348:
324:
259:
239:
1149:
653:
493:
301:
278:
215:
36:
191:
613:
86:
955:
942:
911:
709:
638:
559:
515:
478:
432:
177:
1050:
Thanks for the unwanted advice.I could do without lessons from you about Afd participation.Cheers!
293:
deletion, requires some discussion and is more final than can be achieved through speedy deletion.
1093:
1041:
982:
946:
876:
713:
526:
454:
413:
393:
1106:
996:
915:
810:
789:
775:
771:
755:
634:
618:
589:
543:
344:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1148:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
157:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1130:
864:
848:
706:
648:
584:
488:
468:
371:
296:
210:
205:
907:
784:
555:
78:
70:
481:. As head of the organisation he works for... I'm not sure the organisation itself meets
871:
to let readers and closer peruse every thought. I suggest you restore it and strike. –
686:
428:
55:
1089:
1084:
1037:
978:
934:
930:
926:
886:
872:
642:
580:
522:
482:
450:
409:
389:
201:
938:
609:
576:
116:
1126:
1078:
844:
464:
367:
637:
has done a fine job in knocking this into shape. My opinion has not changed re
575:
I am working on the article. Please, check, and let me know if it meets
510:
The organization is national government agency and already has stub
477:
Just to be clear, the subject does not come anywhere near meeting
343:: blatantly promotional article. Knowledge is not a CV database. —
1142:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1083:
I have already expressed my thought above early and later after
1032:
You should have done that " pruning" and "re-evaluating" before
743:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
677:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
321:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
974:
112:
108:
104:
754:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
176:
463:
To make it simple, for a COI editor, I will say NO.
963:of a highly regarded, notable academic independent
683:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
971:National Information Technology Development Agency
512:National Information Technology Development Agency
200:Self promotional article... inappropriate as per
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1156:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1105:Agreed. GNG should be the guideline to follow.
1036:, perhaps you would've said something better. –
236:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
751:To discuss recent improvements to the article
190:
8:
319:Note: This debate has been included in the
256:list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
234:Note: This debate has been included in the
318:
253:
233:
977:and I said this upfront since day 1. –
958:
641:, but he just about scrapes it as per
7:
885:From where I stand, it doesn't fail
925:In AfDs everywhere people will say
889:at all, as the "topic has received
24:
1006:Duplicate !votes are disallowed.
949:to your prior statement, both
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
910:. But, yes, it bitterly fails
1:
1135:21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1112:15:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1098:10:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1059:07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
1046:18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
1028:17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
1015:17:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
1002:16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
987:12:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
921:05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
881:17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
853:21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
835:03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
816:09:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
799:01:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
779:01:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
765:01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
732:22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
718:11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
696:19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
666:12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
625:03:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
596:20:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
568:03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
547:21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
531:14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
506:14:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
473:11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
459:10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
437:09:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
418:14:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
398:08:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
376:07:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
353:23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
333:20:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
314:20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
287:20:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
268:15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
248:15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
228:15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
65:08:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
1173:
991:No issues. But, NACADEMIC
1145:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
364:WP:Article for Creation
518:and possible copyvio.
906:", which also covers
891:significant coverage
728:SarekOfVulcan (talk)
965:research institute
952:
947:mutually exclusive
749:Relisting comment:
612:, for advice, and
975:this shoddy shape
950:
945:": because it is
767:
698:
694:
662:
502:
335:
325:Shawn in Montreal
310:
270:
260:Shawn in Montreal
250:
240:Shawn in Montreal
224:
63:
1164:
1147:
1109:
1082:
1056:
1025:
1012:
999:
940:
935:non policy based
918:
896:reliable sources
832:
813:
753:
746:
744:
729:
693:
691:
684:
682:
680:
678:
661:
660:and the soapdish
658:
656:
651:
623:
621:
594:
592:
501:
500:and the soapdish
498:
496:
491:
309:
308:and the soapdish
306:
304:
299:
279:Arthistorian1977
223:
222:and the soapdish
220:
218:
213:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1154:deletion review
1143:
1107:
1076:
1052:
1021:
1008:
997:
916:
828:
811:
797:
768:
763:
739:
737:
727:
725:per cleanup. --
699:
687:
685:
673:
671:
659:
654:
649:
619:
617:
590:
588:
499:
494:
489:
307:
302:
297:
221:
216:
211:
137:
128:
93:
79:Isa ali pantami
77:
74:
71:Isa ali pantami
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1170:
1168:
1159:
1158:
1138:
1137:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1017:
951:cannot be true
904:of the subject
883:
858:
857:
856:
855:
838:
837:
818:
803:
802:
801:
793:
759:
752:
747:
736:
735:
734:
720:
681:
670:
669:
668:
629:
628:
627:
570:
560:David Eppstein
549:
536:
535:
534:
533:
508:
475:
461:
440:
439:
422:
421:
420:
378:
355:
337:
336:
316:
272:
271:
251:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1169:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1080:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1054:Winged Blades
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1023:Winged Blades
1018:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1010:Winged Blades
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
994:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
966:
962:
957:
948:
944:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
919:
913:
909:
905:
903:
898:
897:
892:
888:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
833:
831:
830:Winged Blades
825:
822:
819:
817:
814:
807:
804:
800:
796:
795:contributions
791:
786:
782:
781:
780:
777:
773:
770:
769:
766:
762:
761:contributions
757:
750:
745:
742:
733:
730:
724:
721:
719:
715:
711:
708:
704:
701:
700:
697:
692:
690:
679:
676:
667:
664:
663:
657:
652:
644:
640:
636:
633:
630:
626:
622:
615:
611:
607:
602:
599:
598:
597:
593:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
548:
545:
541:
538:
537:
532:
528:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
507:
504:
503:
497:
492:
484:
480:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
460:
456:
452:
449:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
404:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
388:
384:
383:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:Speedy delete
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
315:
312:
311:
305:
300:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:Speedy Delete
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
225:
219:
214:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1144:
1141:
1122:
1075:
1053:
1022:
1009:
992:
964:
960:
956:WP:NACADEMIC
943:WP:NACADEMIC
912:WP:NACADEMIC
900:
894:
890:
868:
829:
823:
820:
805:
790:Patar knight
772:Patar knight
756:Patar knight
748:
738:
722:
702:
688:
672:
647:
646:
639:WP:NACADEMIC
631:
600:
572:
551:
539:
519:
516:WP:PROMOTION
487:
486:
479:WP:NACADEMIC
447:
424:
406:
402:
386:
381:
380:
358:
357:
345:Oluwa2Chainz
340:
295:
294:
274:
273:
209:
208:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1085:your rescue
929:supersedes
902:independent
863:Please per
824:Weak Delete
707:Catfish Jim
616:for edits.
606:Catfish Jim
552:Weak delete
164:free images
689:Sandstein
614:Kendall-K1
349:talk to me
58:Sandstein
1150:talk page
899:that are
865:WP:REDACT
703:Week keep
632:Weak keep
585:WP:RESUME
429:Mais oui!
425:Weak keep
206:WP:RESUME
37:talk page
1152:or in a
1090:Ammarpad
1038:Ammarpad
979:Ammarpad
961:director
939:bitterly
908:WP:BASIC
873:Ammarpad
785:WP:BASIC
741:Relisted
710:ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ
675:Relisted
556:WP:BIO1E
523:Ammarpad
451:Ammarpad
410:Ammarpad
390:Ammarpad
123:View log
39:or in a
931:WP:SNGs
821:Delete
806:Comment
776:Uanfala
650:Catfish
610:Uanfala
579:. BTW,
573:Comment
544:Uanfala
490:Catfish
298:Catfish
212:Catfish
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1127:Darreg
1108:Aditya
1079:Aditya
998:Aditya
941:fails
927:WP:GNG
917:Aditya
887:WP:GNG
869:strike
845:Darreg
812:Aditya
643:WP:GNG
635:Aditya
620:Aditya
601:Update
591:Aditya
581:WP:COI
540:Update
483:WP:ORG
465:Darreg
382:Delete
368:Darreg
359:Delete
202:WP:COI
142:Google
100:delete
577:WP:NN
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1131:talk
1123:Keep
1094:talk
1042:talk
1034:this
983:talk
967:..."
877:talk
849:talk
723:Keep
714:talk
705:per
583:and
564:talk
527:talk
469:talk
455:talk
433:talk
414:talk
403:Keep
394:talk
372:talk
347:»» (
329:talk
283:talk
264:talk
244:talk
204:and
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
893:in
792:- /
758:- /
655:Jim
558:. —
495:Jim
303:Jim
217:Jim
192:TWL
121:– (
1133:)
1125:.
1096:)
1044:)
993:is
985:)
879:)
851:)
716:)
566:)
529:)
485:.
471:)
457:)
435:)
416:)
396:)
374:)
351:)
331:)
323:.
285:)
266:)
258:.
246:)
238:.
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1129:(
1092:(
1081::
1077:@
1040:(
981:(
875:(
847:(
712:(
562:(
525:(
520:—
467:(
453:(
448:—
431:(
412:(
407:—
392:(
387:—
370:(
327:(
281:(
262:(
242:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.