Doczilla stays busy meeting real life deadlines and may not see inquiries soon. The big lizard therefore will not always respond swiftly even though messages are appreciated.

I just noticed that Sunday, June 23, was missing from the AfD list. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc - sorry to bother you again, but, don't you think the AFD such as this should be closed as non-consensus, given the absence of policy-based keep votes? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfD? There is more than one. You and I have each been involved with far more than one. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Falah Party. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they talk about policy-based things such as coverage and notability. A person can make a policy-based comment without citing the exact policy. Citing the policy does simplify discussion and helps others who are less familiar with the specific policies, but it is not required. Mainly, though, they were addressing the points in the nomination itself. If they argue that the nomination has not made its case, they do not have to make any further case themselves. It's why judges sometimes dismiss courtroom cases once the prosecution rests: If the prosecutation does not make its case, then it is not necessary to present a strong response. The keep !voters effectively argued that the nomination did not make its case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Only one provided coverage to establish WP:GNG, but it fell short and I countered that. The other three simply voted to keep based on WP:ATA without clarifying how the subject meets GNG. Anyway, I'm not arguing the article should have been deleted, but the result should have been non-consensus. If you think your closure was adequate, I won't say more. Thank you! --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Segun Toyin Dawodu. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

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.

Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Can you elaborate on your closure rationale on David J. Jackson? We had three delete !votes (including the nom) and two keep !votes (both of which had policy-based rationales). Even if it's just a straight vote count that doesn't seem like a strong consensus, particularly when the discussion hadn't been relisted even once. Interested in your thoughts, thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That two-sentence stub of an article? "David J. Jackson is a political science professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. He specializes in the relationships between entertainment and politics. He holds a BA from the University of Detroit, an MA from BGSU, and a Ph.D. from Wayne State University." Wikipedia is not an academic directory. After 7 years, the stub remained just that.

NACADEMIC 7a, which you cited quite appropriately, only says that criterion 7 "may be satisfied" (may, not shall) if the person is frequently quoted and without specifying what counts as "frequently" in the first place. More important is criterion 7 itself: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Other discussants were not convinced that Jackson made substantial impact. The information you and Goldsztajn helpfully provided (I was glad to see NEXIST cited) did not refute the other arguments and did not address this key issue: What exactly is Jackson supposed to be notable for? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my !vote what he’s notable for: “his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics.” Not a major figure, clearly, but one who passes a criterion of an SNG. To base the close on its stub status “after seven years” as you said instead of the sources and rationales presented strikes me as a supervote, considering the lack of consensus in !votes after a single week. Would you be open to a relist or changing to a N/C? I’d like to improve the article based on the sources identified and that clearly asserts the claim to notability, but I’m worried about a recreation being subject to a G4 deletion or having a “delete” close held against a new article in an AfD should I create an expanded article on this topic. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]