Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 21

Segun Toyin Dawodu


The page was deleted after the individual who requested the deletion mutilated the page by removing key links and information on the notability of the subject and in the process skewing the page to look bad.

The page was created around 2008 because of the notability of the individual in many respects including:- 1. Earliest Nigerian blogger since 1997 and created the website Dawodu.com. There are more than 50 Wikipedia articles that reference this website to show its significance in contributing to discussion on Nigeria’s socio-economic, political and historical issues. 2. He was one of the pioneer editors of the Knowledge Now (https://now.aapmr.org), a repository of articles in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the world hosted by the American Academy of Physical Medicine (AAPMR)and also pioneer author of articles on this platform. Inquiries can be made to AAPMR through their website AAPMR.org. 3. He was one of the pioneer authors of various articles on Emedicine that later became part of MEDSCAPE (MEDSCAPE.com) which is the number one website of medical articles in the world and that was as far back as 1998. His article on spinal cord injury and causa equina on MEDSCAPE was a reference for Emergency Room doctors in managing such conditions.

Some of these were fully discussed in the past at a previous attempt to delete the site.

The question that the editor that requested deletion needs to answer is why did he delete relevant references and mitigated the article before requesting the deletion of the article. One can see this as evidence of possible malice.

I do hope that this will be reviewed as soon as possible and allow the discussion to continue for another week to enable more people participate. Attempts were made by me behind the scene to ensure that the person that requested deletion will consider the above and withdraw the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckanopueme (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If "and candidate for Masters in Global Healthcare Leadership from University of Oxford Reuben College, Oxford" is such a critical part of the article so as to constitute "key links and information" and removing it is "mutilat[ion]" and "skews the page to look bad", then this never should have lasted this long. Endorse. —Cryptic 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More than that was deleted. In the process of the deletion, references were mismatched to create a false narrative. May be an error on his part or may be with some intent. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Temp undelete please so us non-admins can examine the edit history. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks and for all facts to be considered. I think his website created in 1998 after an initial bog from 1997 has contributed to knowledge even within Wikipedia. The website at a point in time was the main text and source of information for research in Nigerian universities and that is how he became known to some of us journalists and he became an hero at a time when such Information was not easily accessible elsewhere. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently the history is still at the page, so here's a link to the article. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment for information by someone who was involved in the AfD: all the person who nominated for AfD did to the article was a) some recategorizing b) fixing some references c) the removal mentioned above. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.
 * Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.
 * 1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu
 * Articles that were pioneer articles written by him
 * 2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu
 * Articles that were pioneer articles written by him
 * 3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com
 * WHOOS data on domain names
 * 4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college
 * Article from Reuben College, University of London.
 * The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.
 * 5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu
 * His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.
 * I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.
 * Thanks.
 * Chike Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “Fixing” the references was done with mismatch. That created a false narrative.
 * Also a comment by another that because there were discussions in the past should not be relevant but past discussions are relevant if the issue discussed previously are being raised again especially on notability because the reference point was events from 1997 to 2009 when things done by the subject of the article were pioneering from the links posted so far. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Clear as day endorse for me, consensus from the debate is clear and the above nomination rationale is lacking substance. The references to debates from over a decade ago as a reason to overturn is wildly irrelevant. None of the three numbered points in this debate offer any kind of reasonable argument of notability, something consensus at the AfD agrees with. The description of the editing behaviours at the article is erroneous to the point of being misleading. Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ’’’Response’’’
 * Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.
 * Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.
 * 1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu
 * Articles that were pioneer articles written by him
 * 2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu
 * Articles that were pioneer articles written by him
 * 3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com
 * WHOOS data on domain names
 * 4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college
 * Article from Reuben College, University of London.
 * The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.
 * 5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu
 * His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.
 * I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.
 * Thanks.
 * Chike
 * I went through some of the comments during deletion which some others who may be interested did not have a chance to review. Some of those comments have been addressed in my earlier postings. One of the comments was on fellowship being solely on paying membership fee which is not true.
 * 1. https://www.aapmr.org/members-publications/membership/join-the-academy/member-applications
 * To be a fellow of AAPMR (FAAPMR), the individual needs to be board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation ie passed the specialty board examination first.
 * 2. https://www.aanem.org/membership/join-renew/membership-eligibility-and-dues/categories-of-membership
 * A fellow of American Academy of Neuroelectrodiagnostic Medicine is required to also pass the board examination before being co sidères as FAANEM. The above are not different from the FRCS and FRCP in the UK.
 * 3. https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-fellowship/bcs-fellowship-criteria/
 * The above lists very stringent criteria to become a fellow of the British Computer Society (FBCS) which is the highest level of membership in any IT field in the entire world. Becoming a fellow is not a mere payment of membership fee
 * 4. https://www.rcsed.ac.uk/membership-information/member-search
 * Membership of the Royal College of Aurgeons of Edinburgh requires passing a rigorous examination.
 * The above in addition for he fact that the subject is one of two people in the world who are physicians, attorneys and clinical Informaticians at intersection of medicine, law and IT points to his notability and the reason why I created the stub for him.
 * As an editor, I don't think he needs Wikipedia to tout who he is as his presence in the World Wide Web is notable on many other platforms especially for his work on his blog(Dawodu.com), on MEDSCAPE and on AAPMR's Knowledge Now, the later two being the global leader on articles in medicine and in rehabilitation medicine respectively.
 * I think all these facts point on a need for an extensive review and also ensuring that the act of defacing a stub to hide nobility of the person in the article and then ask for deletion should never be allowed or tolerated. This act beings very one including Wikipedia into disrepute.
 * Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse With one exception, Wikipedia is not about what you have accomplished, but instead what others have written about you. The exception is whether you're in academics, which is not one I particularly agree with. The discussion was conducted and closed correctly, removing references before an AfD looks bad but there wasn't any malice there if you look closely (de-duplicated a link and removed a dead link which appeared to be substantially the same as the other articles), and a quick review shows there weren't any clearly overlooked sources or misapplication of WP:NPROF. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made reference below to work that the subject did as an early pioneer at MEDSCAPE and Knowledge now. These are academic work. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse Sounds like he's had a reasonably good and distinguished career. Don't see how he remotely meets notability guidelines, and the appellant clearly confuses accomplishments with notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the notability guidelines are reviewed, at least 4 were met if not more. We can discuss the notability guidelines in this regard.
 * This includes the influence of Dawodu.com that he established which has Ben referred to on many platforms including Wikipedia.
 * This fact has been well co weed on other social blogs where the site had significant influence.
 * There are other grounds on notability including being part of pioneering work at Medscape and Knowledge that have been stated previously.
 * The reference to other achievements were in response to previous comments like fellowship being paid for, etc and basically to debunk the premise on which those statements were stated.
 * these are facts that should be viewed objectively in this regard and the site should be restored without hesitation. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, you need to read WP:BLUDGEON and understand your replies are not helping. You've got multiple editors chiming in who make a habit of dispassionately reviewing deletion decisions in which none of us were involved. Repeating the same stuff to each one of us isn't going to sway anyone. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Calm down and no need for your reaction. All I am doing is debunking some statements made falsely to justify deletion and pointing to the existence of notability for this subject.
 * I will advise against your attempts to crowd-pulling by stating that everyone is against restoration and focus on replying to my response.
 * Your reply is sad because you are basically stating that you and some others have made up your mind without listening to views that debunked your wrong premises.
 * let me make it clear that this is a critical step being taken to see how sincere this platform is in adjudicating this type of issues The subject of this article does not need to be listed on Wikipedia as he is listed on many other platforms. His presence on Wikipedia is solid because there are many articles referencing his website. That alone is the irony of notability being defined to fit whatever purpose.
 * i do hope the administrators will look deeply into this and apply the notability policy as it is defined and not just mere views or opinion of people who have their own reasons for whatever actions they are taking.
 * The Wikipedia notability guidelines should be followed line by line to define final decision.
 * As stated and for emphasis, his website was the earliest blogging on Nigeria and still a source of research on Nigeria’s socio-political, economic and historical issues, part of pioneer authors on internet publishing of medical articles with MEDSCAPE and Knowlesge Now with his articles referenced globally. What more notable than that?
 * This is why I am urging the senior administrators to look at the notability guidelines line by line in making their final decision. I am not crowdsourcing or crowd-pulling for editors to come in and join the discussion because the issue is very clear in an unbiased mind. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Telling a vastly-experienced editor (and DRV participant) that they are wrong about bludgeoning, by continuing to bludgeon the discussion, is a stunning demonstration of lack of self-awareness. Quite frankly, you are doing more harm than good to your own cause by writing extended, rambling missives like the above examples. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your assertion of “vastly-experienced” is based on what? There are people who have vast experience in editing in other spheres that we need to focus on the issue and be less personal.
 * My take on this remains emphasised that the notability guideline needs to be followed. I am not doing this to do anything other than emphasize the key points even if it has to be done repeatedly
 * Remember that your premise for deletion and other excuses have been debunked and all I am hearing is more of personal attack on me. Let us focus on key issues of notability guidelines. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you do not accept the statement that Jclemens is vastly experienced, then the rest of your arguments will fail on account of having absolutely no functional judgement whatsoever. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We are now turning into insults. Very interesting bunch. Again, focus on the issue paramount to the discussion which is on notability. I can get the drift that you guys have nothing more to offer on notability and just hanging on to what was decided likely based on bias and prejudice. This makes the entire saga very sad on those editing for Wikipedia. I am here and learning. As a journalist, this is a great experience to write about later using this as a case study. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't normally file an ANI on you for this, but you've been pushing this one article for 15 years... so I did. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair, this is a free world and not exclusively Wikipedia. The need to defend what is obviously injustice is what I have done.
 * The premise for you asking for deletion has been debunked and sad that you next step is being personal and that is telling Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you the article subject? You uploaded the photo in 2012, which appears to be a selfie, and called it your own work. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, you are clinging to straw. And looking for little reasons to win an argument and again running from the core issues. I solicited for information from independent sources and the initial picture posted was rejected because it came from a k own site that led me to use the one that was sent to me. As a journalist, I have been using the website Dawodu.com for years to do my research on Nigeria and reason for my interest in the subject. On your question, the answer is obvious and I am not going to even waste my time on the ridiculous question. Waiting for your ANI. Hopefully this discussion stays on record to show how things are handled in Wikipedia. Running away for the core discussion on issues should not lead to personal attack except of afraid of the truth being told exposed. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, that's NOT your own work, and you uploaded it and falsely claimed the authority to license it for free worldwide use? I mean, if we ask that Commons delete it as fraudulently licensed, it will disappear from all of your... err, Segun's Wikipedia pages in other languages, too. Your call. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you understand by own work. You need to get a good hand on what means. This explains why some are not showing I derata di g of the notability guidelines. So we have you as a “vastly experienced “ editor, running around meaning of notability and now also running around meaning of “own work”!! And on top you threatening and trying to shut up others with ANI. That is telling and very sad.
 * Again, let us focus on discussing notability guidelines as you sound scared of that and bring other extraneous issues into this Very sad but very interesting to see the huddle at the back end of Wikipedia. Not encouraging and those higher in the hierarchy should as a matter of urgency look into this. This is why I am here engaging in this discussion ie to see the underbelly and behaviour pattern in decision making of allowing or not allowing certain articles and whether bias or prejudice is part of the dealings. Very sad indeed. Still waiting for your threat of ANI sir. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse because DRV is not AFD round 2, and we are not being asked whether, in our opinions, the subject passes general notability or academic notability. Answering that question would require detailed review.  I haven't done that detailed review because I am not required to do that detailed review for this purpose.  We are being asked whether the closer assessed consensus correctly.  That's an easy question.  The closer evaluated consensus correctly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The request was AfD and routed to the closer for that purpose. Kindly address the issue of notability. We all need to be careful trying to dodge this key question because it tells on what Wikipedia is all about by some of the editors. Which is why O think this issue needs to be looked into at a much higher level and also reason why I have provided a lot of information repeatedly on this. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ckanopueme, I think you misunderstand the purpose of DRV. It's not for arguing about notability but assessing whether or not this AFD was closed correctly. That's why Robert says that DRV is not AFD round 2. More importantly, your attempts to argue for this article have not been persuasive so it's time to take another approach rather than arguing with everyone you disagree with. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse: With the other non-SPAs who've commented, I agree that the purpose of DRV is not to relitigate the AFD, but to determine whether the close was properly done. It was.  It is also not to cast aspersions at fellow editors. I understand that Ckanopueme's near-sole purpose on Wikipedia over the course of fifteen years is to promote this obscure figure -- it's been years since they've made a single edit for any other reason -- but they would be better served by learning how Wikipedia works.   Ravenswing      05:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it looks like we need to Relist the article. The AfD nomination was not legit it first place, it looks like.


 * Because, the nominator did remove some refs (see here)-- not any material, just the ref, which generally would only be done if the source is unreliable or skeevy -- right before nominating. But the refs were to Legit.ng, which looks, well, legit, and does have an article here here which says that in 2018 it was the 7th most visited website in Nigeria (which is one of the most populous countries in the world), so it's not chopped liver. And it looks serious to me. And there's nothing in its article that says it's been called out for being biased or sloppy. And one to mynigeria.com, which doesn't have an article here and is more downscale, but is clearly a professional-looking real news operation and not somebody's blog or something; they say they make original content. So I don't know why they were deleted. There's not much in the way of edit summaries, but one says "remove dead link" but the removed link is not dead. And is a link to a reasonably meaty biographical article on the subject in the 7th most visited website in Nigeria... this puzzles me.


 * If the refs were deleted as part of a deletion of the ref'd material because the material was too trivial or too biased or something, that might be different. But they weren't. Without knowing more, it looks like the edits did not improve the article, which basically renders the subsequent deletion nomination illegitimate IMO. We would not want that to become a general thing, so why make an exception here. Unless there's something I'm missing this is a trout for User:Uhooep; I'm assuming all this was done in perfect good faith, but it's an own goal, and we need to relist the article.


 * (If, on the merits, the article has no legitimate reason to exist and will surely be deleted in an new AfD, I suppose I could be like ennnh whatever. But, tho I didn't drill a lot, and there is plenty of fluff, but if it is true that he is really the founder of dawodu.com well, dawodu.com looks to be a serious newspaper, so that right there along with the biography at legit.com looks to be the beginning of a place to start building a legit article of a couple-few paragraphs. (This might require User:Ckanopueme to be topic-banned from the article to prevent future re-bloating, and just do that if you want to.))


 * It's not a popularity contest, or about which editors we do or don't care for, or who does or doesn't talk too much. It's about whether the edits the nominator made right before the nomination corrupted the nomination (by mistake I assume, but motive doesn't matter). Looks like it to me. Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)