Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toks Asher Young


 * 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 keep. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Toks Asher Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article fails WP:GNG. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in signification coverage independent of him. None of the sources in the article (the ones that actually discuss him) are independent of him. All of the awards and nominations he's received are not notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia.  Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject not notable, article promotional in tone with primary sourcing. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  15:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. (Techwritar (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC))
 * Techwritar is the creator of the article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  19:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2020 January 14. The gist of the review was that we need a more detailed and rigorous discussion of the sources in the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly a stronger keep, per my comments at DRV where I explained that based on my review of Google web and news searches, I'm able to provide two sources here (in-depth, and reliable and independent source) and here (another in-depth, and reliable and independent source), 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. Moreover, these are just two sources I found, and I haven't, and am not able to assess offline sources, which I expect there to be. Thus, an easy WP:GNG pass here. Finally, as a professor who has generated significant press source in mainly African news sources, he passes the SNG(s). Doug Mehus T · C  21:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dmehus. Sources appear over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2020 (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.