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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isa ali pantami[edit]

Isa ali pantami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Self promotional article... inappropriate as per WP:COI and WP:RESUME Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I am quite surprised my Speedy tag was removed. It's obviously self promotion with no evidence for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to have evidence for notability to pass CSD-A7, just any assertion of significance which is in any way plausible. In this case a number of claims for significance have been made, some of which are marginally credible. Deletion for lack of notability is a higher standard than speedy deletion, requires some discussion and is more final than can be achieved through speedy deletion.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: blatantly promotional article. Wikipedia is not a CV database. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Might be notable, but the present state of the article is not allowed on Wikipedia. Article creator should use WP:Article for Creation and remember to always add references. There is a strong claim of significance, but the COI editor didn't add any reference so I think it pass for speedy deletion. Poorly written BLP article. Darreg (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe subject is notable but the article was made in unrescuable shape. I tried to rewrite it but that will means making it anew entirely — Ammarpad (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed mind, because the article has been greatly improved by user below me and others, it is no longer in its former shape.  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, the current article is a dire example of the “CV” trend on Wikipedia (this in not LinkedIn). However, the actual topic does seem to pass our notability criteria. But who can summon the energy to completely rewrite the article? Mais oui! (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tried that, but to be sincere it dawned on me that will mean complete rewrite and cannot be done in hurry. Small reorganizing cannot convince people to change their !vote here before this AfD closes. The article content and tone is clearly strange and largely unwanted.  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• To make it simple, for a COI editor, I will say NO. Darreg (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to be clear, the subject does not come anywhere near meeting WP:NACADEMIC. As head of the organisation he works for... I'm not sure the organisation itself meets WP:ORG. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The organization is national government agency and already has stub National Information Technology Development Agency, just the way this article is crafted makes reorganizing it more tedious than writing new, that is why no need to contest anything especially if one has no available free time. Even me when I saw it I think it can be CSD'd, as it is obvious there's smack of WP:PROMOTION and possible copyvio.  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I've trimmed down the article, reducing it to a two-sentence stub that only documents his position at the government IT agency. For other possible claims to notability, please refer to the article's history. – Uanfala 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article is much improved (thanks, Uanfala!) but I couldn't find sources other than about how he's taking over NITDA and (from government propaganda sources) how amazingly wonderful he will make it be. So while there's enough coverage, it still fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am working on the article. Please, check, and let me know if it meets WP:NN. BTW, WP:COI and WP:RESUME are not even deletion criteria. Can someone tell me, under which policy/guideline we should be deleting this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have done what I could. He looks like a marginally notable academic/civil servant/cleric/author. If kept, the article will need a properly capped title, and the infobox will need some work. Ping me, and I will do that job. Thanks Catfish Jim for all the editing, writing on something I have no clue of I really needed someone to lend hand. You are the best. Also thanks Uanfala, for advice, and Kendall-K1 for edits. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Aditya has done a fine job in knocking this into shape. My opinion has not changed re WP:NACADEMIC, but he just about scrapes it as per WP:GNG, which is arguably the more important test. I still have some concerns about the level of hyperbole in the article... I imagine that some of the awards that are listed are of limited significance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep per Catfish Jim ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Patar knight, the "recent" improvements were made by Aditya Kabir over ten days ago and subsequent to that several editors, including the nominator, have changed their !votes. I'm not sure I see the need for relisting here. – Uanfala 01:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I relisted mainly because after looking at many of the added sources, a lot of the coverage of Pantami seems to be name drops, passing mentions, and short pieces. This may not be sufficient to meet WP:BASIC in the eyes of the delete !voters, and it would be unfair to assume their position has changed merely based on how other delete !voters responded. Also the nominator's new !vote was only a "weak keep", endorsed by another user's "weak keep", and it admitted that the article was still a borderline pass on GNG even after the changes. So it seems reasonable to think that some other users might think this is still insufficient. I agree that it's trending towards a keep result, but I think another relist would allow a clearer consensus to form, and it can always be closed before a week if the trend continues.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After all the improvements, I still am not sure if this passes notability (though I would not worry about passing mentions, as there are hundreds of articles that covers him, and many more interviews of him). The claims to fame do not look as solid as I would like them to be (though he certainly is no more a one-hit-wonder). The media hyperbole is also suspect (besides I can't read Hausa or Fulani, and have no idea of reliability of Nigerian media). That is the reason I am waiting anxiously to see which way the wind blows as far as this discussion goes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak Delete--Fails GNG/ NACADEMIC but manages to brush very close to the borderline.All that I see are passing trivial memtions in a large number of sources that covers NITDA rather than Pantami.Some sources seem too hyperbolic and/or too promotional to be non-paid non-promo-spam.But, checking whether they meet RS criterion or not were plainly difficult.The recieved awards (awarded by newsgroups, corps etc.) are crap and as such adds zero notability.The improvements by Aditya were great but it has not sadly altered the coefficient of notability for me to a great extent.Also, media penetration in Nigeria is fairly great and there is no scope of laxities based on systemic bias et al.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godric I agree with you that the media coverage in Nigeria has been fairly good since the 2010s, but it depends on the profession. NITDA are more of a scholarly governmental body. Nigerian media houses are not interested in such, because it will not drive traffic to their web portal. Darreg (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please per WP:REDACT it is not appropriate for you to heavily redact your comment after someone has already replied to it. Now you made his replies to look contextles. Please use ^[corrected]]] or strike to let readers and closer peruse every thought. I suggest you restore it and strike. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where I stand, it doesn't fail WP:GNG at all, as the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which also covers WP:BASIC. But, yes, it bitterly fails WP:NACADEMIC, though you may consider that he is not just an academic. But, it is interesting that the first fresh !vote in a longtime is a straight Delete. Anxious to find what eventually will happen. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In AfDs everywhere people will say WP:GNG supersedes WP:SNGs and that's the truth. Now you admit he does meet GNG, so it doesn't matter whether 1 or 10 new fresh !votes say delete, delete, delete especially vague non policy based delete !vote of "delete fails GNG" without showing how they failed it. I disagree with your statement "...bitterly fails WP:NACADEMIC": because it is mutually exclusive to your prior statement, both cannot be true at the same time. furthermore he is not only Academic, (which you admit too) he's not even well known in that field but he received wider coverage for his religious activities and now current job. Second; still from WP:NACADEMIC "...the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute...". This quote further shows why your " bitterly fails" is not correct. He is currently director of notable government agency National Information Technology Development Agency. I initially supported deleting this article not because I am afraid she'll not meet Wikipedia notability but because it t was in this shoddy shape and I said this upfront since day 1. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No issues. But, NACADEMIC is a more stringent set of requirements than GNG. "Bitterly" was a silly word to use. By the way, would you mind !voting again? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Duplicate !votes are disallowed.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will be probably pruning the article and it's sources in the coming days based on rel. of source, encyclopedicness etc. and re-evaluate the article.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should have done that " pruning" and "re-evaluating" before this, perhaps you would've said something better. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the unwanted advice.I could do without lessons from you about Afd participation.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya: I have already expressed my thought above early and later after your rescue efforts, I changed position. My reply to your comment is only to bring to light what policy/guideline actually say after I actually saw you give one non policy/guideline-based "delete!" big recognition. (You can reread your comment). So if this resulted in kept, your work and other editors surely will count, so I am not belittling it. Second, I actually know almost all SNGs are more stringent than GNG and I didn't say the opposite in my reply. I don't know whether you really understand me. There's big difference between my word " supersede" and (be more) "stringent". Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GNG should be the guideline to follow. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted this article deleted because it was created by a COI editor, but it has been rewritten from the scratch to an encyclopedic level by many experienced editors. Subject seem to marginally pass WP:NPOLITICIAN/WP:NACADEMIC as the head of NITDA. Changing to Keep. Darreg (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (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.