Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Asiedu


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Asiedu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Avoidance of AFC by sockpuppets. Exact duplicate of declined AfC for Draft:Alexander Asiedu (declined for PROMO) then copy/paste moved into mainspace after being declined at AfC. Prodded by one editor after that point, PROD removed. CSD added by me for policy violation, CSD removed, now at AfD. SPI opened as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominator has not explained how this violates WP:GNG or WP:NOT. Promotional content has been removed, but there's plenty of sourced content left.  p  b  p  22:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I can find no policy that forbids creation of the article in the manner in which it was created. There's nothing stopping someone from creating an article if he/she has the permissions to do so.  I can find nothing at WP:AFC or at WP:COPYPASTE that forbids copying from a declined AfC to an article; the only thing amiss is that, per WP:CWW, it should have been attributed.  If the nominator believes that copying from AfC to an article is forbidden, I urge him to cite the relevant policy or guideline in his nomination.  p  b  p  22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply - The article was declined at AFC; that means that by default, it was "not suitable for Wikipedia." It is not up to me to re-review the article for policy compliance and decide whether it's good or not; AFC has already done that.  I will tell you that if I do re-review it for sources, the Sun Online sources will disappear entirely because they don't appear to exist (nor does the website, period), Gulf African Review is a trivial mention, Tv3 has a picture but doesn't mention the subject by name in the article until the third paragraph as a response to the rest of it, University of Cape Coast is not independent because Asiedu is on the board, and the Peace FM source is a speech he gave at a conference whose notability is indeterminate.  So yes, I can see exactly how this might be construed as PROMO, especially because the first GHit is his company, and  the very next hit, is a scandal involving the subject, which is conveniently not mentioned in this article.  Other than that, there's very little out there that is useful, and certainly nothing that covers him to the extent or the tone of the WP article.  Nevertheless, AFC already decided it was not suitable for Wikipedia, and it was moved into article space without being changed; therefore, it doesn't belong in article space, and needs to remain in draft space until such time as it is suitable for inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of the sources. Gulf African review is not a trivial mention, there's whole paragraphs about him in the article.  TV3 is also a more than trivial mention.  Those two combine to pass WP:GNG.  If you think the scandal belongs in the article and you've found a source for it, then put in content about the scandal (though I read your source and it's a passing reference, mentioning him as a "con-man" as a throw-away line).  Just because the article isn't perfect, doesn't mean it has to be deleted.  Though I did remove the info about his education because I couldn't find any source for it.
 * You said "It is not up to me to re-review the article for policy compliance and decide whether it's good or not." Um, if you are going to nominate an article for deletion, you'd better review it for policy compliance while nominating.  I'm still waiting for the link to the policy that says the article shouldn't have been created.  People need not get an approved AfC before an article is created; I've created dozens of articles myself, none of them using AfC.  p  b  p  23:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the AfC reviewing instructions. It's pretty clear from the workflow that a declined article doesn't go out in mainspace, and this one clearly did, because I have tracked the edits showing what happened.  That's policy as far as I'm concerned, but hey, feel free to tell AfC their role is meaningless.  They'll appreciate that, I'm sure. MSJapan (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They are meaningless in the sense that it is not imperative for an article to pass the AfC process to exist as an article. p  b  p  01:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.