Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ejembi John Onah

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. I'm going to quote here: "if the creator of the draft cannot find enough sources to pass AFC after three declines, an AFD, a DRV [actually a REFUND], and more AFCHD bludgeoning than I can count, then the subject of the draft is likely not notable". It is insane to keep debating this in forum after forum. No amount of semantics can cause this to be acceptable to our standards with the current state of sourcing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ejembi John Onah


Time-sink- despite the protests by the author that we're counting citation records wrong, getting into an edit war (!) over the use of a LinkedIn reference, that Google search results (yes, literally linking to a google search result page) are reliable, the fundamental fact is that as established by the earlier AfD, this guy fundamentally doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC- h index, or through his impact. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This has turned into a massive time sink for just about everyone involved. The creator has been bludgeoning the process pretty much since day one, has some serious competence issues when it comes to anything other than attempting to write this draft (see sections 22, 24, and 26 of their user talk), and doesn't know how to take "no" for an answer. The subject has been deleted via AFD once already, and there has been almost nothing done (reference-wise) to demonstrate that said lack of notability has been overcome. Let's put this one to rest. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that as part of their unblock conditions, they agreed they wouldn't edit this draft again (12:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)). I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked again. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I figured they would just keep editing the draft, but also knew that we would reach this point (MFD) if they kept it up. I'd rather have the page put to rest permanently than risk perpetual unblock requests and/or socking. And who knows, they might be able to be a productive editor after the page is deleted. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They were released from the condition, at least with respect to editing the draft, by this comment from the undeleting admin, User:Anachronist.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete  – What can I say? I've gone about as far as my patience will go in attempting to assist this editor in understanding how to adhere to WP policies and rules, just to have my advice ignored in favor of their idiosyncratic interpretations. Interaction on IRC was no better. The result of the earlier AfD, that the subject does not meet notability requirements, should be reinstated.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote, now having been made aware of the material at WP:DRAFTIFY pointed out by Dodger67. Lack of notability is the only reason I have for being in favor of delete and that's been removed as an applicable criterion. Ejembi12 has this one part of policy more correct than I did. My prediction is that this draft will either languish in draftspace as long as Ejembi12 wants to plug away at it (then 6 months more to G13) or Ejembi12 will realize that they can, all by themselves, move it to articlespace. If the state of the article, and the evidence both in the draft and available in the outside world, remain about where they are, I expect an immediate AFD, where notability can be applied.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  16:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason they haven't moved it back to mainspace is that they were explicitly prohibited from doing so after the last merry-go-round. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi12 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * keep I am not engaged in any war with any person as I have appreciated all your contributions with all respect. During the previous undeleting discussion; the undeleting administrator User: Anachronist advised that the article before it can be moved to mainspace be reviewed by high volume editor. He further advised me to edit the article since it was at a draft stage as user:jmcgnh wrote, apart from linkedin reference as allowed by wiki under some circumstances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn whereby it can authenticated as in this case, the other references have been verified as reliable. If you think linkedin is not allowed, that is ok; I will delete it. Apart from linkedin; the other references have been verified as reliable by other editors, all the google search which was initially put by another editor as allowed have been removed and I respect that, so where is the issue, all thesame I apologize. I am a highly respectful person and wants to follow rules, please let us not personalize issues by use of some  languages for order and peace and professionalism. It should be noted that User: Jmcgnh earlier recommended 3 citations out of the subject citations to be verified as from reliable sources for notability which was done and even more as in the reference.  I appeal to you to keep the article since the subject meets 1-8 criteria out of the 9 criteria for notability academics. Ejembi12 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note – My interpretation of the record:
 * I recommended on IRC that the 3 best references for establishing notability be brought to AFCHD for discussion, so that the result would be on record and could be referred to from elsewhere.
 * Ejembi12 (or a putative surrogate) brought 3 of Onah's published papers to argue that their citation counts (or perhaps the sum of citations counts to the papers that cited those three papers) amounted to evidence of notability.
 * Many more of Onah's papers were then thrown in, over and above the 3 that were suggested
 * Somehow during this time the draft was moved to articlespace and deleted through AFD and an undelete request was filed
 * Pending the outcome of the undelete request, the AFCHD conversation was suspended without a conclusion and never resumed (archive link).
 * So there has been no recorded discussion of meeting the criteria for notability outside of the original AFD, plus what's occurred in the draft and now here. At no point has there been an agreement that any of the criteria have been met.
 * But we can't discuss notability here as that apparently can't be grounds for deleting a draft at MFD.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow the AFC process to resolve as usual. The article has had some improvements. The only question is whether the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC requirements for inclusion. The discussion above is not about that, it's about tendentious behavior, but we don't censor articles for such behavior, we censor editors. I'm not prepared to do that, but I would like to see the article evaluated by an experienced non-involved editor (which includes non-involvement in the propr AFD). I would recommend to the author that if the community's interpretation of inclusion criteria don't match yours, then you might want to re-think your interpretation. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You make a fairly decent point,, but I have evaluated it from an AFC perspective. I have been entirely too involved recently to review (i.e. actually click the "decline" button) but I've been watching this thing from the beginning. I have simply not seen any indication, in any of the versions of the page, that leads me to believe that the subject meets our notability criteria. I know my !vote above is the least "we don't like the user" comment of the above, but if the creator of the draft cannot find enough sources to pass AFC after three declines, an AFD, a DRV, and more AFCHD bludgeoning than I can count, then the subject of the draft is likely not notable. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What DRV, Primefac? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Turns out it wasn't a DRV, just a REFUND request. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:Anachronist (I had wondered what happened to my old friend User:Amatulic!) was intimidated by the massive wall of the request. I think the answer is WP:PROF and WP:Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's me. It's been a while since you and I intersected. Anachronist was the username I wanted when I first joined Wikipedia but it was taken, and when it became available again I jumped on it. I don't recall being intimidated by a wall, I just felt that there was a chance the subject was notable, and because it was authored by the subject, the only available venue for that situation is draft space. So I insisted that the author work on it there, to head off further problems that occurred in main space. If the article meets even one WP:PROF criterion, it should be kept. The author believes it meets multiple criteria, but the community believes otherwise. I'd like this discussion to focus more on that discrepancy and the reasons for it, and less on behavioral problems. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning Delete per the clear result of Articles for deletion/Ejembi John Onah. Unless that has been challenged at DRV? Checking the logs, I see that the mainspace article was three times draftified, by User:Dodger67, User:Favonian, and User:Mduvekot.  These people should be reminded that use of AfC or Draftspace is optional, is not recommended by some such as me, and the author has a right to refuse the advice of AfC and put stuff straight into mainspace.  From there it goes to AfD, which can make is a binding decision. , subject to userfication discretion if the AfD decision was borderline. An admin may subsequently userfy/draftify on their discretion, informed by the AfD.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02: 14, 28 December 2017 (UTC).  editied --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (not !voting as I'm WP:INVOLVED) I was the nominator of the AFD, there were only two delete !votes, so as AFDs go it was not a strong consensus. However, if this article/draft/subject ever appears at AFC again I will ignore it, as I regard the author's ongoing persistence as tantamount to edit warring. (BTW AFD is not the only accepted way to WP:DRAFTIFY a mainspace page.) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Roger (Dodger67), follow your draftify link, and check it’s talk page, and let me know there if I got anything wrong. In this case, with hindsight, draftification only postponed the decision and lengthened the pain. He wasn’t open to advice, so it needed to go to AfD. The AfD was small but clear. AfC should not, and should not have to, entertain this rejected topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * comment Be reminded that the subject article has followed all advice and addressed revision concerns and continues to be developed, that the article has been verified for other criteria for notability academics which there are 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics); subject article needs to proof only one. So far is not in dispute based on verifiable reliable source by other review editors that the draft article satisfies criteria 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 on notability academics. The only criterium at issue is 2 because the well known German International Scholarship body-KAAD as a policy protected by German law do not publish award recipients but it was confirmed recently by KAAD head Dr. Marko Kuhn that the subject was a scholar in 1996. Be reminded that an article according to wikipolicy cannot be deleted for disagreement over a policy or guideline :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Please be reminded that miscellany for deletion as the case here cannot be applied to article in draft space especially on issue of notability:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts . Please I appeal to you to allow the article to be developed as it has been, thanks.
 * comment Be reminded that the subject article has followed all advice and addressed revision concerns and continues to be developed, that the article has been verified for other criteria for notability academics which there are 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics); subject article needs to proof only one. So far is not in dispute based on verifiable reliable source by other review editors that the draft article satisfies criteria 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 on notability academics. The only criterium at issue is 2 because the well known German International Scholarship body-KAAD as a policy protected by German law do not publish award recipients but it was confirmed recently by KAAD head Dr. Marko Kuhn that the subject was a scholar in 1996. Be reminded that an article according to wikipolicy cannot be deleted for disagreement over a policy or guideline :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Please be reminded that miscellany for deletion as the case here cannot be applied to article in draft space especially on issue of notability:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts . Please I appeal to you to allow the article to be developed as it has been, thanks.
 * Based on a quick read of the above, it looks like you just don't get it. We've already talked about your unwillingness to listen and acknowledge advice given to you by multiple reviewers- and this is more of the same. I'll highlight some selected quotes from the diatribe above. You claim that it is not in dispute based on verifiable reliable source by other review editors that the draft article satisfies criteria 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 on notability academics- patently false given we've all told you that the subject doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC- that's why this draft is at MFD! Then, you claim miscellany for deletion...cannot be applied to article in draft space- again more ridiculously false bluster. I'm honestly wondering whether you're just trying to troll us at this stage. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - While Anachronist makes a salient argument for keeping, the tendentious behavior by the article's creator is simply wasting the time of other editors. No need to reiterate the valid cases for deletion made by the several other editors above.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment Thanks to Anachronist for speaking with such professionalism and neutrality that the article has underwent substantial change since he knows the history of the article being the undeleting administrator, so I appeal to rest of you to please not allow bitterness or sentiment or disagreement over content guideline or policy to delete an article in draft space against wiki policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, notability:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts  which have been addressed in addition to all other observations:
 * Worldbruce wanted citations in body text that was addressed
 * Jmcgnh recognized the notability of the article and proposed that 3 citations be selected for verification from reliable secondary source that was done as in reference
 * Primefac proposed much earlier that citations must come from secondary sources that has been done
 * etc. In all these cases and more; respect has been shown to correct till this moment.
 * Factually in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 9 criteria which an article needs to proof only one; the article has these elements:
 * The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Some of these substantial citations are archived under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion, archive 282
 * The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. The subject pioneering activities cover top institutions like Caltech, Cornell university, etc cutting across 189 countries.
 * The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The subject chairs first of a kind nanoacademy-US-EU-Asia-Pacific and Caribbean Academy of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (USEACANN) with several nobel laureates covering 189 countries
 * The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The subject chairs the largest nano initiative in the world; US-EU-Africa-Asia-Pacific and Caribbean nanotechnology initiative covers 189 countries in unity of academia, policy makers and private sectors
 * The subject is an editor in chief of peer review academic journal; ' Journal Nanotechnology Progress International (JONPI)' with several Nobel laureates as co-editors among other top nano leaders globally
 * The discovery of polymer films with least dielectric constant of 1.5 ever reported has potential of making electronics including cellphone and computer better while performing complex tasks, etc
 * Please do not delete and thanks all of you for making the article better.
 * Ejembi12 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.