Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele

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. Now largely rewritten and sourced as Kayode Oladele, the earlier opinions also didn't seem to be aware of his position as member of parliament. Sandstein 11:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, nearly unreadable, and written by the subject of the article. At a bare minimum, it needs a case of WP:TNT Scr★pIron^IV 22:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill lawyer, a google search of the person brought up this article, his Facebook and linked in profiles, and some articles that mention him. Seasider91 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G12 - Per this external link (see Copyvio tool results). I'm going to ignore the fact that the article was created in the wrong namespace. G12 aside, it fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO by a longshot. Could almost be considered for G11 if read in the right context. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national parliament (House of Representatives).[1] If this is copyvio, stubefy and start over. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k - I'm still not convinced that this article passes. WP:POLITICIAN does not directly assert whether or not that it requires WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO in order to pass, or that it excludes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO (meaning that the fact that the article passes or fails them is irrelevant). In my experience on Wikipedia, as well as the time I've spend judging articles for CSD and AFD -- I believe that WP:POLITICIAN requires WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and isn't an exclusive policy.

Taking this into account, your source only mentions the person, but does not cover him in-depth. I'm failing to find any sources that provide significant coverage or even basic coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Surely, a politician would be able to easily pass WP:GNG if notable. This is the question and the factor that makes me believe that WP:POLITICIAN requires WP:GNG; this article does not pass WP:GNG, and hence should be deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability rules confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article. WP:NPOL just clarifies what is accepted as a valid claim of notability for a politician — but that claim does still have to be sourced to RS coverage which verifies its accuracy. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT, then recreate in the proper place. He does satisfy POLITICIAN as an elected member of the National Assembly (Nigeria).[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, so this article appears to have been created in 2007 by Kayode Oladele (talk · contribs), whose userpage redirects to this article. In January 2014, it was moved from Kayode Oladele to Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele by Kayoladele (talk · contribs). I don't see any good reason for that move. But it's sat there until this AFD. Could it be Autobiographical, perhaps? If it should be kept, then we should just revert the move - which I would have done if it weren't at AFD. No need to move it back if it's just gonna be deleted anyway. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it wasn't moved from articlespace to this title in 2014; it was moved from his userpage to this title. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it was - missed that. In that case, I'd suggest userfying it right back. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. Clearly notable as a member of a national legislature, but no idea why it's where it is. Obviously poorly written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inexperienced editors have occasionally created pages in projectspace, or moved pages into projectspace from elsewhere, because they mistakenly thought "Wikipedia:" was where articles went (there's a Namibian businessman who's up at WP:MFD right now for that exact reason.) I'm guessing that's what happened here too — he thought moving his userpage to this title was making it an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a national legislature is sufficient notability in and of itself to make a person eligible for a Wikipedia article — but NPOL does not confer an exemption from having to reliably source the fact that the person did serve in the legislature, because we have seen hoax articles created about people who didn't actually serve. This article, however, is completely unsourced — so even as an eligible-in-principle topic, he doesn't get an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie that would entitle him to keep an article that was written like this. Delete or sandbox, without prejudice against future creation of a reliably sourced article about him if he can be properly verified as having served as claimed. Keep per sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Assembly itself isn't a reliable source? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Assembly would be a primary source rather than a reliable one, because it's a directly affiliated organization rather than media coverage (in the same way that a television journalist doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article just because they have a staff profile on the website of the television station they work for, but still has to be referenceable to some degree of coverage in media outlets they didn't work for.) The Assembly is a perfectly logical and acceptable place to look for verification of whether the person actually served in it — but it isn't independent enough of the topic to serve as an article's only source. And this article isn't even citing the National Assembly, at that, but is completely unsourced in its current form. I do grant that we still have a lot of old articles about legislators which are still sitting on primary source confirmation from the legislature's own website as their only references — but that's because not enough people are doing the work of going through them to actually add the type of independent sourcing that's actually required, and doesn't mean that a primary source profile is enough sourcing to get an article kept that was created after the rules about BLPs were tightened up to require at least one source that passes WP:RS. There's just too much content here that isn't supported by the NA profile, for example, and there's too much POV/public relations promospeak threaded through it. And again, I said no prejudice against the recreation of a properly sourced and properly written article about him under WP:NPOL #1 — the level of sourcing doesn't have to be brilliant, but something which represents media coverage of the subject in an independent source does have to be there and the article can't say anything about him that isn't supported by that source until more sources are added to support more content. But as I also often have to point out in AFDs on potentially notable politicians, even Barack Obama would have to be deleted and left for future recreation if his article were written and sourced this way and nobody was actually putting in the effort to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to review what constitutes a primary source. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I really don't. A source is primary if it's directly affiliated with the topic (e.g. his own website, a "staff" profile on the website of a directly affiliated organization, etc.), and secondary only if it's fully independent of them (i.e. media). It's a moot point now, because the sourcing has been improved properly, but I'm not wrong about what does or doesn't constitute proper sourcing for an article. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as unsourced BLP without prejudice against recreation (in the proper namespace) if/when proper reliable sources can be found and included. --Finngall ^talk 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep now that the article has been TNT'd and improved. --Finngall ^talk 07:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep a clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN as elected member of the House of Representatives of Nigeria, representing Yewa North and Imeko Afon federal constituency, Ogun State, southwestern Nigeria. I'd like to say that i'm sad to seeing the deletion votes above with no single person thinking of improvement to the article under discussion. It's better to do this than a call for deletion. Seasons greeting to you all. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement actually happening, not "the theoretical prospect of improvement maybe happening someday", is what it takes to get me to change my mind on a WP:BLP that was violating multiple Wikipedia policies in its existing form. But trust me, a delete vote from me is never intended to belittle the person that an article is about — speaking as a Canadian, I'd even vote to delete and recreate an article about Justin Trudeau from scratch if the quality of what was in it were bad enough. Given that you have now restubbed and upreffed the article I've revised my original vote accordingly — I'm glad you took it on, so don't be sad anymore. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Clarityfiend and Bearcat. You have both brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have both engaged in a discussion that led to an improvement to this article. I'd like to say that reliable sources perform two major functions. They are used for the verification of information and to establish notability. Sometimes, a reliable source may perform both functions simultaneously, in the case of the official website of the National Assembly. In some cases, it doesn't . For example, a columnist doesn't automatically becomes notable simply because they have a staff profile on the website of their employer. The notability must be demonstrated outside their own place of work. In this case, the official website may constitute a primary source. If you have concerns about what constitute a primary source, this can be raised in the appropriate talk page. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- However, official websites of legislatures that list members of that legislature are clearly acceptable evidence that an individual passes WP:POLITICIAN when all we need for that standard is verification that an individual does hold that position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:21, 21 December 2015 (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.