Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olusola Areogun

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. Sandstein 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Areogun[edit]

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

A self-published Christian pastor. The only substantive sources turn out to be churnalism - press releases reprinted as content. The history of the article shows it to be promotional in intent, and Google does not provide any obvious evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Olusola Areogun previously rejected multiple times at AfC and then copied into mainspace by one of the two accounts which had been tending the draft. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has been pruned of most of its POV content which was more appropriate to a church newsletter. What is left, aside from claims which are not and cannot be referenced, is mundane: the references verify a person going about his trade, but I agree with the AfC reviewers in 2016-17 and see nothing which demonstrates WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My initial reaction to the article was that a general overseer is an office similar in nature to a bishop, whom we would certainly keep. On second reading I suspect that he is merely senior minister of a church, in which case he is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (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.