Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeyinka Adesope

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adeyinka Adesope

[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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. A before search shows him majorly mentioned in primary sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : though the article is poorly sourced, the subject is a successful and notable real estate developer with significant independent media coverage available from a Google search results such as these: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. More Google search would bring out more indepth coverage of the subject. Ugbedeg (talk) 6:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Struck out !vote from sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugbedeg, One of the three sources you presented above is already present in the article. The two new ones you just mentioned coupled with the 4 already present in the article do not discuss subject of the article with significant coverage they merely mention him in passing & as such do not adhere to WP:GNG Look below at the table & look at my analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://nigeriarealestatehub.com/nigerias-real-estate/	Press release	Pre packaged material which isn’t independent of the subject hence can’t be reliable	Mere announcements	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/property/stakeholders-urge-government-to-focus-on-affordable-housing/			Subject isn’t the focus of the article, the source merely tells us he gave a speech at the event hence has no overall value when ascertaining notability	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/walk-everyday-to-live-longer-lagosians-urged/	This is a blatant sponsored post	No editing oversight	The staff of the organization going for a fitness walk around an estate doesn’t show exactly how subject of our article is notable	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/iconic-project-atlantic-resort-evolves-into-the-oceanna/	sponsored post	no editorial oversight for this particular published work / Guest editor	This sources literally isn’t even about the subject of our discussion.	✘ No
https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/grenadines-cappa-dalberto-sign-n40bn-atlantic-towers.html	press release		As usual, yet again the source isn’t even about the subject of our discussion it discusses a whole different thing entirely & tells us how the subject of our discussion gave a speech which means absolutely nothing and does nothing for WP:GNG.	✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/palton-morgan-gets-coo/			Literally discusses a whole different person & tells us for the umpteenth time how subject of our article gave a brief speech.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Celestina007 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sourcing is indepdent, reliable and significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject does not seem to meet WP:NBIO, especially when separated from more notable business ventures they are affiliated with. Too many of the cited sources are unreliable, lack in-depth coverage, or only mention Adesope in passing. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, and per source analysis by Celestina007.--Jack Frost (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles that basically mention the existence of an individual and that don't received independent reliable coverage are not notable per WP:BIO, also WP:GNG applies too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:33, 30 June 2020 (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.