Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Salifu

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Salifu

[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)

Was draftified, but it is unclear whether or not a regional minister of Ghana (seems to be the equivalent of a governor) meets WP:NPOL. Courtesy ping Onel5969. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards a keep, but interested in others' reactions. This person has had at least two national-level Presidential appointments, one of which also required the approval of Parliament. Regional ministers are constitutionally mandated (section 256 of the 1992 Ghana Constitution) to "represent the President in the region" (s.256(1)(a)); the nature of the appointment process indicates this is more than a high-level administrative post (which would not be presumed notable). He also served as Minister of State for the Planning Commission (which is covered in section 86 of the Constitution). While Ghana is not a federal system and the work area for the first appointment was regional, the appointment itself was a national political process, so I think there's reasonable grounds to argue this person has held at least two national level offices satisfying NPOL#1. There is also some further sourcing available which I've added to the article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn's reasoning above, and the likelihood of more coverage like this existing online today had the events not taken place twenty years in the past. NemesisAT (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his position seems to be one that passes NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:06, 22 January 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.