Specifically, that's User talk:Amatulic#Afusat Saliu. Also, I have temporarily restored the article history as a courtesy, for the purpose of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not a valid speedy. Apparently two newspapers think she's important, which is enough of an indication to pass speedy. I think we'll delete it at AfD under NOT NEWS, but that's for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I judged the newspaper articles to be coverage of a petition rather than the person, but I also agree that the article will likely not survive AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy Sources that count toward notability are an assertion of importance. The fine line between coverage of the person and coverage of the petition about the person belongs at AfD--speedy deletion is for more clear-cut things. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and send it to AFD. A7 is only for absolutely clearcut cases where there is no plausible indication of notability whatsoever. If there is any doubt, then it shouldn't be speedied. In this case, there is recent coverage in reliable sources that brushes up against the topic, which should have created enough doubt for the community to review it. This sort of misapplication of A7 is a continuing problem that does need work to rectify. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with DGG that we'll delete it at AfD. I agree with the others here that we have to overturn the speedy because of point 2 of WP:DRVPURPOSE above:- BLP1E is not a speedy deletion criterion and A7 didn't apply.—S MarshallT/C 10:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
