Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gbenga Adigun

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wasilatlovekesy (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 18 May 2024 (→Gbenga Adigun: K). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gbenga Adigun

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gbenga Adigun (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)

Delete, the subject clearly fails minimum notability requirement. Article having a bunch of sponsored press releases masked as independent coverage of the subject. The first references from the Sun (Nigeria) is a clear sponsored post and that is evident in the headline and the body of the article presents a clear indication of PR puffery. The Second source from PM News clearly mirrors Wikipedia structure. The handler possibly used that to prove notability and game the system, and maybe a deeper check of the editor who created the page will reveal something. There are about three different articles from Daily Times (Nigeria), while one mirrors Wikipedia style and structure, the tone is clearly PR puffery, the other two articles from same source are on obscure awards. The reference number 8 from the sun is the subject’s own writeup. Source number 12 from Independent is a single mention of the subject. Almost all other sources bear resemblance of PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Here he was listed by a notable Daily Times (Nigeria) newspapers among top 3 real estate developers [6] and several awards to prove his notability by major newspapers in Nigeria. And for WP:GNG same apply see [7], [8], [9],As a Fellow Institute of Consulting (FIC) and Fellow Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (FCIPD) he comfortably pass WP:NACADEMIC #3 [10].Calyx2s (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I tend to be on the side of keep, as I find a lot of editors nowadays rush to nominate AfDs. Unless, it is absolutely not possible, one should aim to keep the articles. This article has more than two reliable citations from reputed newspapers. I beg to disagree with a senior editor. The CEO Forum seems to be reliable as a reputed UN organisation attended the meet and collaborated with them. I feel the article meets the WP: GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. Your statement itself says it all that you do not understand the issue of unreliable sources raised. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Calyx2s, All these sources listed are "PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable" as stated by @Vanderwaalforces. These are same sources present in the article when it was nominated and nothing has changed since then. The first source you listed above is just a passing mention and everyday, people are invited to speak on certain issues in the media and that does not count for notability. The number 2 is nothing but a PR statement from either the subject of the article or award organisation itself. The number 3 is a statement or press release but assuming that is a reliable source, is about their business organisation that only give a passing mention to the subject of this article. Your sources numbers 4 and 5 are about an event his association organised which he moderated, several people spoke at the event and he received passing mention in one or two paragraphs. It appears that you deliberately repeated sources in the article and in this AFD to create impression of notability because you listed some sources twice and those sources would not be analysed twice. The Number 7 you listed above is 100% PR puffery and it is a clear indication that you do not have a proper understanding of what reliable source is all about. The number 8 counts towards notability but unfortunately it is not enough. Your number 9 is a complete PR packaging. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am skeptical by the nominator reasons, checking the date and year of publications by the publishing house, it has months and years intervals and most if not all have byline to show it independent from the subject. He meets at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC And the above reference by Calyx shows he is notable too as been a fellow of a highly recognized institute pass WP:NACADEMIC. 5, 6, 8 sources are ok to pass Notability they are significant, independent, Reliable (SIR). And on Source one by the Sun [11] highlighted by the nominator, I went deeper to check if he actually had the TVC News appearance the answer is yes, type TOPIC: AN INSIGHT ON HOW LOW AND MIDDLE CLASS CAN OWN SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSES IN NIGERIA on YouTube you will see it on the TV Media YouTube channel. Shows the publication is verifiable .Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gbenga_Adigun&oldid=1224468814"