Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadu Sulley


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Amadu Sulley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The position is not intrinsically notable, and there is minor routine news coverage only except for the ONEEVENT indictment.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - no evidence of any notability. Agree with nominator. If we had an article for every allegedly corrupt politician, we would be overwhelmed. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep-references do not all point to a single event of corruption. They are spread out in the various times he occupied the position which gives him Wikipedia notability status.And again he is not a politician. Disagree with nominator Ataavi —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV ,Article content does not determine notability and therefore the nominator's argument that it leads to a one time indictment event and will make the namesake of the article not meet Wikipedia notability is wrong.Notability requires verifiable evidence and all references sited for the article Amadu Sulley,mostly put out Amadu Sulley as the subject of the article and not some pass-by mention hence proving his notability to attract news and press coverage. Per WP:GNG Admitted the article may have been created during the time his alleged misdoings where public talk,this does not go against any standards.The article is a stub and will be expanded with reliable material and hence from wiki policy must be protected. I support a keep for this African article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataavi (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I struck the second !vote, we only get to "cast" one, but feel free to make comments. Sam Sailor 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." If the head of the election commission is considered the equivalent of a cabinet position, then perhaps the deputy chairperson passes a sub-cabinet official. I realize that the chair of the election commission is not actually in the cabinet, in part because they are probably supposed to be neutral, but countries often have officials who report to the national parliament such as an Auditor General or the chief elections official who have positions that are arguably equivalent to a cabinet minister. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment:Read WP:NPOL.It (Article and its subject matter) passes. Or K.e.coffman could help me see his point of view by pointing out and explaining a bit more.Ataavi.(talk)22:29,22nd August,2018.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment:I believe silence from the other side asking for deletion, means the grounds of the argument for keep for this Ghanaian-related article stub is strong,and thereby the argument for keep should be upheld.Ataavi.(talk)13:32,2ndSeptember,2018.
 * Comment - that would be an erroneous conclusion. There is nothing here that has cast the slightest doubt on my assessment.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- Its a fair and good conclusion, an article on an important public official in a country with a notable career.Passes WP:GNG.Remember article content is not sufficient to make judgement on notability.The article is a stub. References helps in this case. Moreover,the article is well linked to other Wikipedia pages. My past contributions show that I do offer services to wikipedia pages of Ghanaian concern.I vouch for the subject matter's notability.

Ataavi (talk) 08:12, 3rd ,September,2018.


 * 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.