Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Olanrewaju Smart

Closing the AfD
@CactusWriter how did you close this as "The result was delete‎. Consensus that subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Keep arguments were mostly based on WP:OTHERSTUFF" when two keeps mentions WP:GNG? It is one thing to paraphrase and completely misrepresent FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Which of the Keep !votes mentions WP:GNG? Owen&times; &#9742;  12:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * myself to start with "especially that this article have good sources to confirm WP:42"
 * The IP vote: the 4th highest ranking public office in Nigeria has strong notability in the country's public space
 * 1st vote: "Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics"
 * it is quite weird to exercise a supervote when clearly the votes are titling keep and never a delete. A non-consensuses or a re-list would have been appropriate if you are not sure FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are assuming that every mention of the word "notability" is an implied reference to WP:GNG? That seems like a stretch. Mentioning that a certain position is a notable position in Nigerian politics has nothing to do with GNG nor with any other guidelines. And WP:42 is neither a policy nor a guideline. If you had GNG in mind when you wrote that, you can't expect the closing admin to read your mind. Owen&times;  &#9742;  13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * because no one need to mention exactly what is in our mind. The onus of interpretation is on you not us. if you cannot understand what is written then find another AfD that you can understand its arguments and not brush them because it does not say what is in your mind. Read Articles for deletion before dictate how people should contribute.
 * WP:42 clearly include WP:SIGCOV (part of WP:GNG) which you either do not or deliberately choose to ignore. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So from your original claim that two keeps mentions WP:GNG, it now turns out that none of the Keep !votes mentioned GNG. I don't think this type of dishonesty is going to serve you well on AfD discussions. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so now it is dishonesty! how did you become an admin with this attitude?
 * Again no one need to mention words as WP:GNG because you want that, you can read and understand (I think!), see Articles for deletion and also maybe take time out to clear you head, clearly you need it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is the point where you either admit you made a false statement and we continue from there, or you continue the exchange with yourself. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FuzzyMagma, it is important to remember that AFD discussions are closed based upon the strength of arguments linked to relevant Wikipedia guidelines. The arguments for deletion in this AFD were based on a failure to meet NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines -- including the portion of GNG that speaks to failure to provide enough significant coverage in reliable sources. (It was also noted that a fourth editor, who had accepted the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives as a new page, opined the position was not notable in itself.) The arguments of the two Keep editors were based on an assertion of inherent notability for the COS but did not demonstrate significant coverage. They also pointed to the existence of other Wikipedia articles and linked to a failed proposal and a non-guideline. (Note that the opinion of an anonymous IP account whose single edit is in an AFD may be discounted). After reading the discussion and weighing the arguments, I decided the argument to delete was stronger and demonstrated consensus of opinion. You may wish to read the Guide to deletion which includes a section on disagreement with consensus. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @CactusWriter thanks for the detailed explanation and not engaging in some kind of redherring to avoid addressing the point. Please note that this discussion has been opened again maybe because the closing admin did not indicate what you have mentioned. see Articles for deletion/Olanrewaju Smart (2nd nomination) FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)