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. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayogu Kingsley

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We've already agreed once not to have an article about this person; Fatherred apparently thinks we were wrong, and has moved this draft to mainspace without waiting for it to go through AfC review. It seems to me that this person does not meet WP:ARTIST and that the previous consensus was indeed correct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article post-date the previous deletion discussion, so this is not a matter of whether the previous consensus was indeed correct but of whether the subject has become notable in the meantime. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC is reputable, so the sources are worthy, and then this is a notable subject. Page should be tagged as a stub and future info can be added.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few RS in the article already. Meets GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to echo the previously stated sentiments favoring the retention of the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It now seems we have a clear consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, firstly per WP:SNOW, further the article has mulitple sources which shows the article subject meets WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2019 (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.