Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olajumoke Oduwole

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 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olajumoke Oduwole[edit]

[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 hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. A before search shows no evidence of notability Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007, got a notification of you recommending that this article be deleted and it was a bit surprising for me, seeing that the person in this article is a notable Tech expert/speaker in Nigeria and has been featured on many credible media in the country and internationally. As a matter of fact, she was even listed as one of the top 30 persons in Africa by Forbes. I left some of these references on this article and I'm surprised by the nomination for it to be deleted. But I would like to know if there is anything I could do to make the article better. Cheers. Felixdgreat. —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixdgreat, she may be a tech speaker(whatever that means) be on the list of Forbes whatever but per gng we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, thanks for your prompt response, much appreciated. However, I think there are some credible independent sources cited... Forbes is a global body and hugely recognized for their listings and there's also the world bank verifying her and her business as legit. And of course, a few of the top media houses in the country wrote about her independently(I made sure to avoid interview links) to avoid something like this. I'm keen to get this to work as I think she deserves a page for the work she does in the Nigerian tech space, tell me what I can do to improve the article, maybe I can fix it. About the 'Tech speaker' thing, she is an expert in that field and gets invitations to speak at Tech events, I could add links/reference to events she spoke at if that helps. Cheers.Felixdgreat

Delete a non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seem to be about someone notable enough, considering the number of highly placed local and international organisations that have recognised her works. Maybe a few more citations needed but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. I've seen far less notable people in her field have their pages listed. We should find a way to improve this article, as opposed to deleting it entirely.Felixdgreat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It should be noted that the editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. Refined NG and Urban Woman Mag combined with the minor coverage Oduwole has received for being on the Forbes 30Under30 list just pass GNG in my opinion. (note: The Forbes list itself doesn't contribute to GNG as being mentioned in a list is generally considered trivial coverage, but her being listed in the list has garnered some coverage that is non-trivial although not entirely significant.) Samsmachado (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see the ensuing discussion between myself and Celestina for my rationale for changing my !vote. Samsmachado (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, The two sources look okay to you right? “Refined NG” & “Urban Woman Mag “ but they aren’t because they appear to be self published sources (self published sources are generally unreliable because they have no editorial oversight or reputation for fact checking) Furthermore being listed in a Forbes 30 under 30 doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007. Urban Woman Mag appears to have a standard amount of editorial oversight (see their submissions page here UWM Submissions Policy) so I don't entirely know where you're getting the idea that that source is self-published or unreliable. RefinedNG is sketchier as it doesn't have a page where they list staff or submissions policy but they do have an "editor's picks" section (scroll down to the bottom of the page and it's on the right side) so I (whether justifiedly or not) assumed they have an editor and are not a self-published blog. I agree that RefinedNG is dubious which is why I referenced the coverage about the Forbes list. I acknowledged that the Forbes list doesn't satisfy GNG. The point I was making was that the coverage about the Forbes list (that did not come from Forbes itself) in Pulse and PM News adds up to something (per WP:BASIC bullet point 1) that aids the other two sources in meeting GNG. Hope that clarifies. Samsmachado (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado, it may be futile arguing policy with you or anyone else after they have made their !vote it’s only very few people who are humble enough to change a !vote after they discover they may be wrong but I’d explain to you all the same. Recently the PulseNg is not considered to be a reliable Nigerian source & even so the source Pulse literally just names her as one of the people on the Forbes 30 under 30 list it doesn’t discuss her at all & that’s the same thing as this other source you provided above; PM News it literally just mentions her in a list article & that’s all now read what WP:BASIC says if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. From that we understand, the other sources you provide in order to satisfy WP:BASIC must have a level of depth but the aforementioned sources have no depth none whatsoever as she is merely just named as making the forbes list along other Nigerians, Secondly if the sources are on trivial things eg “making the Forbes list” then it doesn’t satisfy WP:BASIC. If the sources discussing someone lacks in-depth then that’s fine we could combine multiple reliable sources to prove notability per WP:BASIC, but when we have a subject mentioned in sources with no depth none whatsoever (other than her name added to list) then it certainly doesn’t meet WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007. Not futile at all and honestly not even an argument because I think we're both being quite polite and respectful. You are very much correct about the other sources mentioned and, by making me look at RefinedNG in a more in-depth light, I have come to the conclusion that I'm not certain enough of its reliability to use it as the second of two sources required for the minimum GNG multiple sources. A pleasure to discuss with you! Thank you for your informed policy-based clarifications. I wish all AfDs could be discussions instead of being based on pride. Samsmachado (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, it’s always a pleasure to have a productive dialogue with a colleague. Celestina007 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado and @celestina007, appreciate the matured conversation that went down on here, picked up a few things. Felixdgreat (talk) 11:43, 8 July 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.