Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woli Arole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woli Arole[edit]

Woli Arole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may be an attempted promotion and it appears to be too soon for an article on this comedian. The article currently has six sources but all are either brief media introductions or short interviews that do little more than indicate his existence in the Nigerian comedy scene. An Internet search reveals a few more of the same, but he has not received the reliable and significant coverage that is necessary under the notability rules for media personalities. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I'll try to be neutral here. I don't think media coverage tends to be promotional here. Pulse Nigeria and PN News Nigeria are independent media sources. WP:TOOSOON may apply however. Lunar Clock (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voicing Lunar Clock, + he satisfies at least criterion #1 & #2 under WP:ENT. Furthermore I can obseve an abundant use of RS in the article & even per WP:THREE he qualifies.Celestina007 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator - I won't bludgeon the process, but the voters above have missed an important point. The sources mentioning Mr. Arole, including those already in the article, may very well be reliable sources in themselves. However, they have all mentioned him in very brief and introductory ways, pretty much simply announcing that he exists with no further in-depth analysis of anything he may have accomplished. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doomsdayer520 I don’t even know why I bother with this AFD as I’m not even the author of the article but in the spirit of fairness imho he does qualify. Can you not see how subject of article qualifies for inclusion under #1 & #2 of WP:ENT ??Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think you should bother with it then don't. I have also already made my argument and will let the community discussion take its course because I don't have to look at this man's article ever again. But since people are pinging me and demanding more comments, my argument is that his coverage is trivial even though it may well be in reliable sources. See WP:GNG, which says a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...and many more. Missvain (talk) 19:31, 21 January 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.