- 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 as there is a consensus that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I know the DRV suggested salting which I am not doing - it was not part of the consensus here - but do so without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator protecting the article from recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Moruf Oseni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.
- Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List
- Here's the address the subject presumably lacking GNG.
- The GNG guidelines include:
- “Independent Coverage” - "There is significant coverage in reliable sources": The subject has sources from Reliable sources like CNBC Africa, Punch Newspapers, Leadership Newspapers, This Day Live, Business Day, The Guardian Nigeria, and New Telegraph.
- "Significant coverage" - “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”: The article has a mix of coverage that are focused on the subject and others that support and are not "trivial mentions". All articles referenced have a good amount of coverage of the subject. The section with the least amount of coverage would be the 'Awards section' which goes to show that it wasn't paid for as if it were paid for, more coverage would be seen.
- “Sources should be secondary": All sources listed in the article are secondary sources
- "Independent of the subject": There is no Advertising, Press Release, Autobiography, or Subject website content on the article. Anybody who feels there is one should please specifically point it out so it can be removed. If the 'Awards' section is deemed too promotional and not having significant coverage, by all means let's take out that section. An entire article doesn't have to be discarded because a particular section has issues. That's why discussions like these were created.
- Being a paid editor isn't against Wikipedia rules and shouldn't bring bias to discussions like this. The question is "does the subject pass the GNG? Is the article good enough for mainspace? Is there anything that can be done to improve it for mainspace?" That's what should be the focus, not just going ahead to have it deleted. It is clear that the subject has notability from all the references cited. The Bank of which the subject is CEO of, Wema Bank, is on Wikipedia as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My reasons are stated above Michael Ugbodu (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article needs to be re-written with proper sources. I will recommend the article is adopted by a competent writer, and rewritten because i can posit the individual does not lack GNG. Currently, the article looks promotional. I recommend it is opened for general editing. Pshegs (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally lack GNG and the reliable sources has no significant coverage
- DXdy FX (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- [This was made in response to a comment, listing a cross-section of references from the article, that's now been changed.] Seriously? 1 [CNBC Africa] has no coverage of the man. 2 [Premium Times] and 4 [Business Day] are copies of the same press release, also appearing e.g. here and here. 3 [Leadership Newspaper] is entirely a quoted press release. 5 [also Leadership Newspaper] is another unmarked press release, as also seen for example here, here, and here. 6 [Guardian Nigeria] also has no biographical coverage, merely a few quotes.If you think these constitute GNG-satisfying coverage, I have to ask: are you, like every other editor who has taken an interest in this page, being paid to do so, or are you merely incompetent? —Cryptic 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked very they are all press releases. The subject generally has no notability. I think I’ll change my vote to delete right now. DXdy FX (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not ready, lacks notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The WP:SIGCOV isn't independent and the independent coverage isn't SIGCOV. The only significant coverage of him in media is either direct reprints of WP:PRESSRELEASEs about his appointment(s) at the bank or thinly regurgitated churnalism based on said press releases with no evidence of additional reporting. The other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that quote him incidental to his role at the bank but that do not provide significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (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.