Dear Vanderwaalforces, I hope you’re doing well. I have recently submitted Draft:Charles Odii (DG SMEDAN) for review and would appreciate your assistance in reviewing and improving it. Charles Odii currently serves as the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the Small Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), appointed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in October 2023. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or edits to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. If you think removing the bracketed “DG SMEDAN” from the title would be more appropriate, please feel free to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Odii_(DG_SMEDAN) Thank you for your time and expertise. Looking forward to your feedback. Imaaaaam (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaaaaam Hi there. It is important I first tell you that it is disruptive to go about on eight other users' talk page pasting this same message there. Stop it, please.

You originally submitted your draft for review, and the notice usually says that it takes weeks, depending on the number of drafts pending review at the time. So, a reviewer will get to it anytime. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I most sincerely apologize for my ignorance and lack of following due process. Perhaps I was so eager to have my first article reviewed. Thank you for the feedback. Imaaaaam (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaaaaam Althought you have removed the template that is supposed to draw the attention of reviewers to the draft. To resubmit, simply paste the following {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. After doing that, please wait for the article to be reviewed. While waiting, you could take a look at the message I dropped on your talk page and read one or two policy pages. Goodluck. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I didn’t notice 🥹🥹I have just added it to the draft as suggested. Thank you so much for your tutelage, Sir. Imaaaaam (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rushed to judgment and I'm sorry for that. Please accept my apologies. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God Bearian, I respect you so much! I didn't hold any grudge at all. It is absolutely normal to make mistakes; I also do. I just wanted you to clarify so that we can be on the same page. There are several editors who will accuse me in the future when they see that, especially when they have no idea what actually happened. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	You are doing outstanding work on Wikimedia, and I even awarded you a barnstar in the past. I believe it's time for you to be nominated for an admin position—you have my full support. Stay happy! Baqi:) (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Baqi! Thanks for the barnstar and for your kind comment. I also very much appreciate your contributions to this project and value you too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hemlata Mahishwar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AndySailz (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndySailz The log page for today appears to be missing an ending comment tag, which is messing up the page. Close the comment tag by adding “—->” before the first thread heading. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanderwaalforces. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse#AFD_closure.
Message added 17:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira thanks for pinging me, even though I didn’t get it (or I didn’t check, lol). But I find it pretty ridiculous for a closure I made to undergo discussion at the teahouse and I wasn't informed until now (even though you pinged me, I didn’t get it). Thanks for reaching out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Vanderwaalforces for accumulating at least 100 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Geneva mechanism Award
		This award is given in recognition to Vanderwaalforces for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so per our deletion guideline Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins., would you please consider reverting and allowing an admin to assess consensus? I believe deletion would have been a valid outcome and should have been an option here, given the article objectively fails SPORTSCRIT. Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay Hi there, that wasn’t a controversial discussion that required an admin to close. Try deletion review as my close was correct. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was by definition a "close call", and thus should have been closed by an admin. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oook, == Deletion review for Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not opposed to NACs in general, I am opposed to "no consensus" NACs for AfDs where deletion is a reasonable outcome. Please see also OwenX's response on this in the other discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey VWF, I got your email — really, don't worry about it! It's a learning process for everyone, I don't think poorly of you at all. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at AfDs, I noticed the relist as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Pichal with the comment Final relist. Per WP:RELIST an AfD should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting a third or more time there is an expectation to write why you did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Hi there. Thank you for reiterating that to me again. I was aware that a third relist is possible but wasn’t aware that at the third time I had to explain why. I guess now I know. I’m clear about it and don’t have questions. Thank you for caring! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You closed this Afd with as reaching no consensus. While that may be perhaps valid on the numerical basis, I strongly believe the merits of the quality of arguments should have been examined. Have they? If so, we saw no assessment of them. To be more specific, the Keep suggestions were either variations of "This is just notable!", or offered sources that were immediately examined in detail and shot down, one by one. Have you read the forensics? It is obvious that the subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON. What's worse, one contribution, titled "Six Virtues", in favor of keeping the article, contained nothing that is in Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. But the discussion was terminated without the closer clearly rejecting these pseudo-arguments, thus setting a dangerous precedent. I'd suggest you diligently rethink your decision. -The Gnome (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there @The Gnome! Yes, the quality of the arguments was definitely examined and this was how it went. You presented a policy-based argument in favour of deletion, so did someone else. Yes, someone else !voted that Delete. The sources are insufficient to meet the GNG but then someone else !voted that Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted, they both look like an argument to avoid during AfD discussions right? but they cited a policy they think the subject fails and extended on why they think so. One said it should be deleted, citing ENT and expanding on their reasoning, which another wants it to be kept because they expanded the article (who also isn’t opposed to a merge outcome). Then there’s an unbolded keep rationale there. I agree that there’s another keep !vote that is entirely not policy-based. But at the end of the day, I think there’s no consensus on whether this should be a keep or a delete or any other outcome. BTW, the Six Virtues (a standard better than GNG IMO) clearly mentioned that it (the Six Virtues) is in their opinion and it remains so. I will love it if you’re clear on what you mean by rethinking my decision. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources already in the article, the additional sources I scared up searching, and the ones offered in the AfD itself were examined by yours truly one by one and found to be without substance. (See Forensics.) This was not disputed. Which means the article has no legs to stand on, i.e. sources supporting notability. Any one who asserted that the article meets GNG without offering anything of substance was not submitting a valid argument. This is what one would reasonably expect from the closer to address. -The Gnome (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Gnome, butting in here to add a second opinion, I agree that "no consensus" is an appropriate close for this. I could also see "redirect" as an acceptable close, but I personally do not think that would be a good read of the discussion. "Delete", however, I see as completely off the table - yes, there are delete arguments, but none of them account for the obvious WP:ATD given in the first response to the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest Deletion on a whim. I spent a good amount of time searching, reading, examining, and assessing all the sources one could reasonably identify. Why aren't you addressing the trivial conclusion of the forensic analysis? There are no sources supporting notability. Do we not see the elephant in the room?-The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vanderwaalforces.

I work directly with the man and i can confirm that the information i provided are genuine SugarDaddyAOB (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SugarDaddyAOB Hello there. Welcome to English Wikipedia. You clearly have a conflict of interest, we have a policy that guides people who have one, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. What this basically means is that, because you work directly with the subject of an article, you are not allowed to directly edit the article, the reason is because you will most likely introduce details that violate our biography of living persons policy. These violations may include adding original ideas and biased information. Before you continue editing, please see how you can disclose your COI (you already did by saying the above, but for documentation purposes) by visiting WP:COIDECLARE. After following the instructions there to disclore your COI, you can now go ahead with WP:COIEDIT (especially the third bulletpoint), to see how you are meant to edit articles you have a COI in. Please let me know if you have questions and I'd be happy to help and guide you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a good faith heads up; your closure here is not in line with best practice at AfD, it would be better to indicate that you withdraw the nomination and then close as a speedy keep, see WP:NACAFD and WP:CSK. Personally, if I had nominated and then withdrawn I would not close as a non-admin due to my interpretations of WP:INVOLVED, but I've seen other non-admin closers do so. Finally, even if self-closing, waiting 24 hours may have been better to see if there were any other responses. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Hello. I very much mentioned withdrawing the nomination. Also, the point has been made, and there was no original support for deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I am inclined to withdraw" is different than "I withdraw" - one indicates possible intention, there other affirms an act. Closing a discussion following a withdrawal this early before the seven day period is a speedy keep not a keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Oh damn! I didn't quite get what you meant originally, the XFDCloser tool also didn't help because I actually used the "quick close" option and I thought that used to result in a "speedy keep". I have now fixed the result; I am certainly to be blamed and not the XFDCloser, hehe. Thank you again, Goldsztajn. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uwa (Ogiso) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]