Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagos State Pension Commission

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 draftify at Draft:Lagos State Pension Commission. ––FormalDude talk 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lagos State Pension Commission[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)

Fails WP:NORG and also, it is created by a blocked account. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, does not satisfy organizational notability, and is work of blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a government agency of some consequence, even though the article is very weak. It will be referenced in legislation. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nomination based on the discussion. The creator of the article is working on following projects - m:Grants:Project/Rapid/Semmy1960/WikiLagos Nigeria Ministries and parastatals cleanup and m:WikiLagos Nigeria Ministries and parastatals cleanup. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate for further guidance and assistance. -Hatchens (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator wasn't evading a block or ban at the time of the article's creation, so it doesn't matter whether they're blocked or not. There's still a delete vote from someone besides the nominator, so I'd rather not close it as a speedy keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of the still in-presence !votes, it remains unclear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Rathfelder is correct that it will be referenced in legislation, but unclear on secondary sourcing. This is a new ish editor. Let them work on it in draft space. No harm, no foul if it is deleted in six months, but maybe it's improved in the interim. Star Mississippi 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify There is a Britsh version at The Pensions Regulator so it assume it is notable or will be notable if it coming into existance. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 26 March 2022 (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.