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 (non-admin closure), Substantial information has been provided to keep the article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab Iyanda Folawiyo[edit]

Very little is known about why this person is notable. No reliable third-party sources are given. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination that was changed:

"Very little is known about why this person is notable. The only sources given are two articles from a very shady-looking website for a small newspaper. No reliable third-party sources are given. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)" Note:Nomination Withdrawn See below, suggest it simply be speedy closed. --Blechnic (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per this conversation, the two "shady looking websites" (a phrase the nominator has now deleted from his nomination) are Nigeria's second largest newspaper (and leading business newspaper) and a major news website. I've already warned the nominator (who attempted to speedy this eight minutes after creation) regarding this; this appears to be clearly a bad faith nom. — iridescent 23:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No issue with reliable third party sources. See [1] and [2] Nk.sheridan Talk 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the editor who created the article of this discussion. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Nk.sheridan's post, I'm changing my vote to Keep.
Sources seem to be reasonable, and they indicate that the subject certainly was well known. Coverage suggests that the subject passes WP:N. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~Appears to be bad faith nomination, particularly calling legitimate sources "shady looking," then altering~~ nomination to remove that information--it should have been stricken out, or the article renominated if needed. If it was merely an accident then the nominator could have withdrawn after learning otherwise, but not withdrawing, and covering up the original nomination, shows, imo, bad faith and an attempt to waste time with this nomination. I do want to point out that calling The Guardian Nigeria's second largest newspaper is not quite so straightforward as it seems, and that from an outsider's point of view, reading it could lead one to interesting questions, particularly reading the obituaries. But it's hardly a small newspaper and it would have taken less than 20 seconds on the web to learn that. Had the nominator simply said he/she had misjudged the sources I could have bought that. I added the original nomination above.
--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'm not familiar with AfD proceedings. I didn't think that I could stop them. Also, I removed the comment because it was proven false. I wasn't trying to cover anything up, I simply wanted to remove a statement that I now know wasn't true. It was indeed a case of me misjudging the sources, and I fully admit that, as I did earlier as well. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll buy that, it's almost impossible on Wikipedia to figure out procedures. Do you still want to continue with the nominating this article for deletion? --Blechnic (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and stop it. Thanks for your help. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with west African sources, the more legitimate ones can easily look shady. The Wikipedia article on The Guardian doesn't quite carry its correct flavor in Nigerian society. --Blechnic (talk)

Okay, so can I withdraw the nomination myself, or does an admin have to do that? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you can do it. No one's going to vote to delete this, so you can just close it. Or someone else can. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for my ignorance, but how do I go about closing it? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.