Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye

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. Michig (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also does not meet any WP:ACADEMIC criterion that I can verify with a reliable source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only tiny cites [1]. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG stipulated clearly that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (I.e not the person personal source), it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. With this[2] In my WP:NPOV, he has not failed WP:GNG. The research work conducted by the subject is most cited accross the globe according to journal Of food science (a reliable source) because of its significance. He has also passed WP:ACADEMICS criteria 1. He has received a Doctorate award,Ph.D which passed him for criteria 2. This [3]and[4] passed him for criteria 3. Lastly to save hour time and the energy to read too many words, this[5]passed him for criteria 8. And we all knows that a researcher don't have to win a Nobel prize before been notable. I suggest that we Keep this article and gives some time for improvement. Thanks (Wikicology (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Criterion 2 at WP:ACADEMIC is "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Why do you believe that receiving a Ph.D meets this criterion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Yes! Ph.D is a highly prestigeous academic Award/Honor/Degree often “awarded” on the basis of remarkable academic excellence in researches and the significant of the researches to the society or global world. If it is awarded within your country, it is national. If it is awarded outside your country it is international. Sometimes it is awarded as honorary based on the impact of the receiver in his society/country or to the entire world. Aliko Dangote is a receiver of such honorary award based on its impact in Nigeria and to the world. Note also that criteria 2 of WP:ACADEMICS didn't specify the exact classes of the award (I.e maybe a Nobel prize or other specific one). I urge us not to mis-interpret our guilding principle (The criterias and the guidlines). Let's call a Dog a Dog.(Wikicology (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF at this point in his career, with an h-index of only 5. A PhD is not a "a highly prestigious academic award," but the ordinary entry-level qualification to an academic career. The "criteria notes" in WP:PROF explains what the criteria mean. -- 101.117.141.12 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@101.117.141.12: am sorry to say this, if Ph.D is an ordinary entry-level qualification to academic career, what is Bachelor of Science(B.sc)(Wikicology (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

A BSc is an entry-level qualification to a a range of scientific careers below academic level. However, academics (lecturers/professors) at reputable institutions are expected to have (or be close to having) a PhD as a condition for beginning their employment. This does not make them notable (see WP:PROF). -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF and no attempt made to provide independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Having a PhD is not enough for an article otherwise my father's brother's son (brother-in-law I think) would have one.--Laun chba ller 14:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Am totally lost has to why every wikipedian WP:POV are centered on P.hD. Why not address other areas of the article? Can you shed more light on what you mean by reliable source? Do we have other reliable source topic apart from the one in our guidlines here?(Wikicology (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete In it's current state fails WP:PROF. Need WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG since there is no sign of him receiving any significant coverage in reliable sources . All the citations on the article are NOT even from very reliable sources. Darreg (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: :@Darreg: here is not a place for nominating an article for speedy delection. Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette. I suggest you read WP:AFDEQ. And don't always based your contribution on existing arguements also read WP:NPOV (Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Darreg has made no edits contravening the WP:CIVILITY pillar. Wikicology, you should apologise for suggesting that they have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The comments above seem to say he fails WP:ACADEMIC but nobody explains how. So I'm asking for an explanation. On simple WP:GNG grounds, my google shows about 170 hits for his name, including papers published. I did a little touch up on the article, it looks like it was not written by someone with English as a primary language. There are 9 papers enumerated that this guy has written. Someone please step forward and explain how they are not significant. Unsourced? Sure seems like the google sources are reliable, they seem to show papers he's written. There are 14 sources listed in the article. I could easily add more. So someone knowledgeable in this field, please explain why this is not notable. Trackinfo (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:Prof, its Talk and archives. If you are not familiar with policy and conventions in an area it may be best to postpone editing there until study has brought greater understanding. That way you are less likely to make mistakes. You are clearly an expert in the field of athletics. It might be best to concentrate your talents there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I was requesting you use . . . words. Explain how his 9 documented papers are meaningless. The publications that have published his work are unreliable. How his PHd is just a grade school education in this world . . . that the societies he is part of are insignificant. Point by point, please. Granted its not my field of expertise, I don't deal in the technicalities of WP:PROF so I'm not giving you a reflex "Keep" even though it looks like he qualifies. Instead, I am questioning why all the reflex "Deletes" with no explanation. If he's such a non-notable failure of a medical researcher, who does not deserve an article, then please explain to us, why. Trackinfo (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics have PhDs, and gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics write published papers (which may or may not get cited by anybody). For notability WP:PROF requires more than just being a run-of-the-mill academic (just as WP:ATHLETE specifies that not all sportspeople are notable). There are several categories of "more" in WP:PROF, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an h-index of about 20 or more). WP:PROF spells all this out in detail (and you should read that document before !voting here). The people !voting "delete" are all experienced editors with a long history of applying the policies in WP:PROF. Calling the "delete" !votes "reflex" is unjustified and a breach of WP:CIVIL. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At most universities in the US the vast majority of full-time faculty have Ph.D.s, as do many research scientists. There are several million living holders of Ph.D.s just in the US. Even if we limit it to the ones who hold positions as 4-year institutions of higher education, it is way more than we would ever want to have articles on. I could run down lots of articles I have created on people with Ph.D.s that were deleted, a few I think without considering the cultural impact of some of the subjects writing, but it is clear that having a Ph.D. is not enough to make someone notable. Nor is having published a book, even if it is a book with a reputable academic press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article don't have to meet all criteria.Wikicology (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obviously fails WP:GNG. Please @Wikicology:, get yourself acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guideline, so you won't continue to waste useful efforts. Regards--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (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.