Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Waya

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. I see a consensus that this could be potentially suitable for mainspace with better sourcing, but we're not there yet. And I think it's been worked on enough by other editors to void eligibility for WP:CSD#G5. ^Complex/_Rational 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Waya

[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)

Draftify There is little doubt that Waya passes WP:BIO, but I have reached the conclusion that this article is pure cruft. I have been verifying the references, and have found far too many that fail verification. This needs to be developed in Draft space and submitted for review. It requires a radical pruning of useless references, and a substantial précis, probably to a stub level. At present it is a fluff piece, serving only to promote the subject 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Several sources fail verification, several lines dont seem neutral. Overall it reads as promotional and could probably use some copy editing. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have taken out time to take out the trash that were identified. Also, I have tried to add one reference per fact as suggested by @Timtrent. I removed a couple of primary sources that are hard to verify, merged two sections into one and took out fluffy statements too. This is an effort towards its improvement as suggested. I also took your advice on doing some copy editing. We all can take a second look at the article and decide if my efforts saves it. My intention is to learn and get it right. I initially gave up it's improvement but as advised by @Timtrent, I worked on it again. Feedbacks are welcome. Thank you Peaxman (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe we should interpret this as the creating editor's !vote to keep in mainspace 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Per nominator. I had previously draftified this before. Not suitable for mainspace in its present state. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is fair to say that this has been much edited since the nomination. I will leave the community to judge whether this is sufficient and whether the references are now appropriate 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would interpret this as "Big Progress" for which You have been helpful. Thanks Peaxman (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Article is pretty organized, but it isn't sourced enough to satisfy mainspace. Checking the article history, it seems that it has been draftified at least once before. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 01:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and require the page pass an WP:AFC review before moving to main space again.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator, Peaxman has been found to be a sockpuppet. Perhaps the article is eligible for G5 speedy deletion. I have not nominated it because of the ongoing deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri I think it likely that sufficient other editors have edited it post creation to make G5 fail. But likely is not certain. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is part of the reason I wrote "perhaps". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and must pass through AFC. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2023 (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.