Toks Asher Young (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because he passes general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. And also have received some awards and recognitions in his field. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note User:Techwritar 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Note. When I wrote my comments, here and in the two discussions below, Techwritar's post in all three read simply "I believe the page was wrongly deleted". Don't worry about it, User:Techwritar. I see below at Blessing Williams that you now know not to change comments after they've been replied to. As you say, we're learning all the time. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As we're dealing with a new user here, I do hope that we'll be able to take this opportunity to explain what's happened in a way that would be intelligible to a non-Wikipedian. With a tempundelete, I'd be happy to try.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to Cryptic for the tempundelete. And no, I'm not content to defend what we've done here. The nomination statement, supported by two editors, appears to be wrong, in that this source and this source, both of which were cited in the deleted article, both look editorially independent from the subject. Given the debate we had, I can't fault Sandstein's close, but the close relied on a debate that didn't fully examine the facts.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to relist Yeah, the sources look just fine and he appears to meet WP:N. Given the sources appear quite reasonable and there was never a relist, I'd say relist was a much better choice°, ideally asking participants to examine the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep as a bold close that avoids bureaucracy or, as a second choice, overturn to relist, for a fuller discussion, possibly with a link to this DRV deletion discussion diversion. I concur with S Marshall and Hobit here, respectively, in that the closer can't be faulted too much in that, based on the discussion provided, "delete" appeared correct. However, just because Techwritar was the author of the article doesn't nullify, or discount, his or her vote at AfD, as far as I'm aware. Based on my review of Google web and news searches, I'm able to provide two sources here and here, from Guardian Nigeria and News Ghana respectively, that meet our common sense definition of reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the articles themselves are both at length and in-depth; thus, an easy WP:GNG pass here. Doug Mehus T·C 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, without bias against renomination - AfDs are discussions, not votes, and we see nothing but bare assertions that he does or doesn't meet WP:N, with no discussion of the sources, but certainly sources enough that meeting WP:N is plausible (at least, the Vanguard, Guardian make it plausible). Assertions but no real arguments, either side "plausible" does not a consensus make. I don't see the point in re-opening over allowing renomination when there's essentially no existing discussion to build on. WilyD 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, that said, I don't really fault the closer here. I think it's a very easy and natural error to make. WilyD 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Cid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes WP:ENT because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse sources don't appear to meet WP:N and the AfD concluded the same. A relist for discussion of WP:ENT wouldn't have been a bad idea (and I'd have endorsed that too), but I don't know that "lots of youtube subscribers" counts as "large fan base", nor do I know if we did take that as meeting WP:ENT, how many would be "large". Given [1], I'd imagine the number needed is more than a million. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the sources here are really tabloid-y. I'd normally expect if there are tabloid sources, there would be good ones, but I can't seem to find any. So I don't see any overturn option here. WilyD 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Williams (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted. First of all Miss Bikini Nigeria International, is a notable award in Nigeria. Secondly When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both but If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. She is the winner, I don't think there is a role larger than that of this event. Thirdly, there are significant views about her published on reliable and independent sources and lastly, She has made a unique contribution and achievement to the field of entertainment as the first Nigerian model to be on a Dubai Magazine Cover. I don't understand why she is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Techwritar, please stop editing your comments after people have replied to them. It's confusing and rude. —Cryptic 02:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Cryptic, thanks for the correction and I hope you understand learning is a continuous process. Techwritar (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here, the sources are pretty weak sauce, and I can't find any better. I worry that the fear of anything that looks remotely spammy is pushing us towards something here that's probably more like systematic bias, but I don't see any way out of it here. WilyD 08:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious endorse With the exception of the nom (who is also the article's author), strong and unanimous consensus to delete. There's no other way the AfD could have possibly been closed. Of course, as always, there's nothing to prevent a new article from being written, provided the concerns raised at the AfD are resolved, which in this case means finding better sources. Due to the copyright violations in the article, a fresh start would be required (i.e. do not restore to user or draft space). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]