Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Darku


 * 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 delete. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Charles Darku

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Guy doing his job.  scope_creep Talk  22:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Clearly promotional, lacks WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 22:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * keep I appreciate that scope_creep  is trying to do his job as he states. The subject matter is notable perhaps not globally but in Ghana. If the article is kept it will be improved. Thank you Ataavi (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and there no coverage whatsoever.   scope_creep Talk  16:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: OK Ataavi you have won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject matter is notable in Ghana which meets Wikipedia requirements. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is he notable? Please show me the evidence so we can examine it.   scope_creep Talk  14:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * delete: all the coverage is routine. Fails GNG. Rockphed (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just did a Google news search and found that 'all' the coverage is NOT routine. It raises a question as to why people want to delete this artcle?? In any event he is more than a news story, he is a notable individual doing an important job that affects many people..  -  Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So far you've not offered a single piece of evidence proving it. Please provide WP:THREE reference that prove he is notable. Three good secondary references should do it.   scope_creep Talk  14:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That Gbook reference is a name drop only and primary, and totally unsuitable to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't have any doubts the guy is notable, but there must decent coverage to verify it. So far it is name drops, routine business news, but no independent secondary coverage that details the man in depth.   scope_creep Talk  17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: We seem to be at an impasse. While I respect all the views presented here, I must say Ataavi has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No not really. You haven't offered a single piece of evidence so far, to validate your claims, merely a bunch of comments and a remarkably unsuitable reference.  scope_creep Talk  17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe we have consensus??? Do you really believe the article is not notable?? Do you really believe there has not been "a single piece of evidence" presented in this case? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be fairer to say that you have not accepted any of the evidence putforward so far??? In any event I will step back. I think this a good article, that it is notable and should not be deleted from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I want the article deleted, hence the reason for the Afd. I don't vote in an Afd, if I think there is any chance whatsoever of it being notable. Usually if the person is notable, and good evidence is posted to prove it per WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO and WP:V, I'll withdraw the Afd. I did that very thing a few days with a muscician Ed Case and always do it, if evidence is posted. The standard approach in Afd is to present the evidence, which you haven't done and which in itself is a good indication that the guy is not notable.  scope_creep Talk  15:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you have me really confused me! On Sept 23 you stated "I don't have any doubts the guy is notable" ??? In any event I will leave the descision to an admin. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I think he is notable, but there must be proof per WP:V. It is not there.  scope_creep Talk  16:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2019 (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.