Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyi Sodimu

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seyi Sodimu[edit]

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

this article does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines , there is NO evidence of Notability on this article , Secondly the references are not reliable , NO evedence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of this article passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of him, including 'Newswatch Times', City People Magazine, Nigerian Entertainment Today, Encomium magazine, Vanguard newspaper, and The Guardian Life. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per references cited by Versace1608 —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of the article, besides meeting the general notability requirements with current citations used, has also been well covered in multiple reliable sources highlighted above, some of which have not even been used in the article. What is really needed is more editing to improve the format. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2016 (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.