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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dapo Ladimeji[edit]

Dapo Ladimeji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication here or on Scholar or G-News of the sort of notability needed to have an article here, no coverage in independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in Google News - Google scholar, and Jstor. There is coverage in BBC programs. 'Beware of Gates Bearing Gifts' has been influential in changing Microsoft policy - it provoked a Wall Street Journal investigation and expose of Microsoft tactics in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention his work is referred to/cited in "Post Colonial Criticism (Longman Critical Readers)" by Professor Bart Moore-Gilbert (see his entry in wikipedia) et al.. a standard academic reference work in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - forgot to sign (did not know how to!) Napata102 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misunderstanding is time based. In 1999 major international organisations such as World Bank etc were all advocating that Africa did not need new ICT or internet. It was the article by Mr Ladimeji arguing that Africa needed new technologies and internet to survive that brought him to the attention of UN Agencies [1] . He was then invited to speak at UN agency conferences and to write position papers that in large part led to wholesale change of opinion by African governments and international agencies that internet and ICT were crucial to the survival of (poor) African countries. Today everyone knows this is true so it is difficult to imagine there was a time when the World Bank argued the opposite. For example donors were arguing in 1999: '‘Penicillin before Pentium! In poor, resource challenged environments, priority must be given to food and health needs, ICT is an inappropriate, unaffordable luxury." (http://www.open.ac.uk/deep/Public/web/publications/pdfs/JLeach2005-DSAAC.pdf) He had a tough job to change opinion at such major institutions and that is why he was invited to UN Conferences. His campaign was so successful people no longer remember that once they thought it was a good idea to prevent poor countries from getting new ICT or internet access. Napata102 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary-soured spammy WP:ADMASQ. Wikipedia is not Linked-In. Pax 05:00, 8 May 2015 (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.