Talk:Tolu' A. Akinyemi

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the article meets the criteria as highlighted at WP:GNG and WP:POET, the article was deleted at Articles for deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi because the sources was not discussed and the discussion was flawed. The article was voted to to be relisted at DRV by      but the article was never relisted.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah! Having selective memory recollections is it? Forgot to mention the large number of individual who endorsed the deletion? Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AfC phase

 * Just like in the AFD where the delete consensus was very much clear and in the deletion review where the delete consensus was upheld, nothing seems to have changed significantly. Going ahead to perform a G4 Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Article appears to meet GNG.  could you identify what you see as issues with the sources in the article? In particular the Guardian, The Nation and The Sun sources seem solid.  Hobit (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've asked the DRV closer what's the proper thing to do in this situation considering Akinyemi seems to clearly pass WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR with the coverage of him in Nigerian sources. I don't remember anything quite like this at DRV. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added additional sources, though a couple of them may already have been in the article, the academic journal discussing Akinyemi was not, and cleaned up/formatted the article better. Should be ready for mainspace. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the nominator's decision is clearly personal, this is a clear exhibition of WP:BITE.The disputed article was resolved by along with. But unfortunately some quarters continues to use their authority to protest the decision. The nominators doesn't have problems with the article or subject of article but with the creator and that's naturally unfair, it's the third time the article will be nominated for deletion--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because new sources were added and the sources that were already here were not discussed in the last AfD. It doesn't qualify under WP:CSD. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with and would have declined the CSD had Hobit not already done so. I ask that no othe editor tag this for G4 at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)