Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyinkansola Alabi

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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oyinkansola Alabi

[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)

Entirely promotional article which fails WP:GNG, sourced to interviews and quotes from the subject. Half of the article was added by a single purpose account in August 2019. A WP:BEFORE search of Google news only finds interviews and mentions that the musician Harrysong was a client. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a number of sources in many of the most credible newspapers in Nigeria, but the main issue as pointed out by the nom is that they are not INDEPENDENT, which can be subjective. Let me see if I can find some independent coverage before the AFD runs out.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This un-independnently sourced PR bloat for the "emotion doctor". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the lengthy list of references, there is a dearth of significant independent coverage. The WP:GNG isn't met and I'm not seeing any claims that would show notability for any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Papaursa. The subject does not appear to be notable. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:29, 12 October 2019 (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.