Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Miraboi Mark (2nd nomination)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Miraboi Mark[edit]

[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)

Still not entirely convinced that this is notable based on the previous discussion. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all subject reference are from reliable source such as Vanguard (Nigeria), The Punch, The Sun (Nigeria), Daily Times (Nigeria), The Daily Independent (Lagos newspaper) many but few to mention from my point of view independent of the subject but not mere mentions which passes WP:GNG also considered in WP:ENT much but might not know in other hands from my point stated article has to be keep thanks --Hyttgf975 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyttgf975 is the creator of the article. Hyttgf975's contributions to Wikipedia have been confined to this article. -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of cleanup work to do here, but of course that's not a reason to delete. The sources indicated seem sufficient to support passage of WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination.~~The sources cited are typical cruft and advertorials in local media. The reasoning given for the recent deletion of the text's previous incarnation stands. It all has the acidic aroma of promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My commentary above stands in full but, for better or probably worse, and on account of additional sources busying themselves with the article's subject, assessed cumulatively, said subject does pass the notability hurdle. Therefore, my suggestion cannot but change to Keep. The text remains in dire need of a serious clean up. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete the article's page. Thou, cleanup is really required, but the person passes notability. Mustapha dare (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha dare has made few contributions to Wikipedia, all after this AfD was initiated. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mustapha dare. You claim that the subject "passes notability" without offering any sources beyond the current, discredited ones. Yours is a simple assertion of notability; but see WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also, look up the arguments in the previous AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those source are not discredited because their from reliable source, also SEE WP:SOURCESEXIST--Hyttgf975 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand what WP:SOURCESEXIST says, Hyttgf975.

-The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has enjoyed significant coverage since last AfD. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:09, 16 September 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.