Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Lottery Authority of Ghana

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 delete. No prejudice to moving to draftspace on request. Kurykh (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Lottery Authority of Ghana

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

This article is both promotional and incomplete. Sections on Eligibility, Operators, and Record Jackpots, while provided as headings, are blank. No references and so not verifiable. An effort was made to preserve this article by moving it to draft space for further work, but the author has moved it back to article space, which it isn't ready for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a speedy. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article whose subject does not meet GNG criteria. GAB^gab 15:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. There's a fair amount of material on the organization. Here's a listing from the on-line version of the Daily Graphic, one of Ghana's main newspapers -- Article listing. I haven't gone through all of them and I assume that quite a few are reporting routine matters. But not all of them -- there does appear to be some controversy over the scope of the 2006 law that created the Authority. Also, there are hits on Google Books. Here, too, I haven't checked all of them, but here's one where the author is discussing a dispute that went to Ghana's Supreme Court ([1]). I believe that a non-promotional, non-stub article can be written about this subject and I'm willing to be the one who does it. But there's no chance that I could do it within the time set for this Deletion discussion. Hence, my call for moving it to Draft space. If this is the result, I would re-write the article over the next few weeks (perhaps months) and submit the re-written article for review by someone at AfC (and, of course, I mean someone other than myself). By the way, the organization is also the subject of National Lottery Authority, which is not a duplicate of the article being discussed here and does not appear to have been written by the same editor. But it's in no better shape than the article being discussed here and the nominator might want to bundle this other article into the nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:32, 18 March 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.