Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamidele Onalaja

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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Onalaja

Bamidele Onalaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Not enough sources to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I found the source below

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm of the opinion that some articles doesn't need to go through AFD instead a notability tag should be placed for it to be improved on if the editor placing it , isn't ready to find source.Otbest (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me help you take a look at the sources you provided here.

1. [8] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N
2. [9] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N
3. [10] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N
4. [11] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N
5. [12] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
6. [13] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
7. [14] — Only this piece I consider both reliable, independent of the subject and covers the subject to an extent. Y

I hope this helps your understanding of how sources are handled individually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you for your valuable contributions, which will positively impact the article in the long run. I believe the article should be kept, and a notability tag can be placed to encourage further improvements.

Based on my opinion on the comments you made on the sources

1. [15] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N

Response: The source "60 Leading Real Estate CEOs of 2022 in Nigeria (Part B)" from The Guardian does contain quotes and statements directly from the CEOs, which might seem promotional. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that such features often include direct quotes to provide insights directly from the subject being discussed. This does not inherently disqualify the source as non-independent. Y

1. [16] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N

Response: I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the source fails WP:SIGCOV due to only passing mentions of the subject. The article from This Day Live provides significant coverage of the controversy surrounding Onalaja's alleged unauthorized representation as the Chair of the Lagos Chapter. It details the reactions and statements from REDAN, offering context and specifics about the situation, which go beyond mere passing mentions. This level of detail and the focus of the article on this issue align with the criteria for significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV. Y

1. [17] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N

Response: Reliability of the Source: Punch is a well-established and reputable news organization. The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency. This transparency can help readers critically evaluate the content, but it does not automatically discredit the information presented.

Also the reliability of the information, one should look at the facts presented in the article itself and cross-reference them with other independent sources. If the claims about RevolutionPlus CEO Onalaja making Forbes Africa's Undiscovered Series list can be corroborated by other independent and credible sources, then the article’s content remains valid despite its sponsored nature. Y

1. [18] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N

Response: This should be considered as providing significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV, as it thoroughly examines an important aspect of Onalaja's public and professional life. Y

1. [19] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: While it's understandable to be cautious about sources lacking a byline, it's important to consider the broader context before deeming the piece unreliable. The absence of a byline doesn't automatically discredit the content; many reputable outlets occasionally publish articles without bylines for various reasons, such as protecting the identity of the journalist or because the piece was a collaborative effort. Y

1. [20] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: The source on the Onalajas’ induction into the Arch Klump Society represents a notable achievement within the philanthropic and service community, and the coverage in Independent.ng reflects the significance of their contributions both locally and globally. Y

Thank you again for your contribution

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 With your “Response”s it is clear that you do not understand how GNG works yet. Also, you explanations to do in how you got the image as your “Own work”, kindly do explain. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@Vanderwaalforces I appreciate your feedback, and I'm here to clarify any misunderstandings. Regarding my responses on how GNG work, I'm committed to continually improving and learning more about it.

Regarding the "Own work" label on my image, I recognize that there could be some confusion. Transparency is key. As a new contriubor who is open to learning, I want to assure you that I strictly follow ethical standards. When I mark an image as "Own work," it means I made it myself.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 Okay, it is now clear that this is actuslly an article about yourself. You are strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself on English Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIO. It is an example of conflict of interest and violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest and in extension, will most likely violate the neutral point of view policy.

Also, please stop adding “Keep” to every of your replies, you’ve !voted three times now which is not supposed to be so. Please, strike any two of them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanderwaalforcesThis article is clearly not about myself and it does not in anyway violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest. Like I have said, I am open to suggestions from the community to improve the article's neutrality and quality, and this can be done without nominating the article for deletion.

Thanks.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I drop the stick here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which will attain higher grades as it develops over time. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean an article can't fail an AFD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a PR based on other PR profiles. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra The article doesn't showcase any public relations (PR) infleunce. Also, the sources mentioned are indeed credible and well-recognized .

  Kindly expantiate what you mean by PR based in the narrative.

  Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Coreyfranklin533: I feel the way you are going instead of dialogue, you might end up making this article I feel has potential be deleted. Portrait your point and allow admin or the closing editor to decide but to me I feel he is notable under WP:BASIC Otbest (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Otbest

  Thank you for pointing that out. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO as pointed out by the nominator. None of the businesses he founded are notable; the accolades he has received are also not notable. Three of the article's nine sources are about the subject receiving some sort of honorary reward. This article is pretty much WP:PROMO.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Versace1608 @Vanderwaalforces

  The businesses he founded are indeed notable. They have made significant impacts in their respective industries and have been covered by reputable sources. The success and influence of these businesses contribute to his overall notability.

  The subject has received accolades from Forbes Africa, which is a highly reputable and notable source.

  I am open to corrections and welcome any suggestions for improvement to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.

  Thank you

  Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per @Vanderwaalforces' thorough source analysis. The page author's persistent sealioning comments (like "The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency," LOL) illustrate a deep lack of understanding of policy. Meanwhile, as Vanderwaalforces notes, if the author is truly the photographer/copyright holder of the photo uploaded to Commons, then this page has a major WP:COI problem on top of its non-notability, and if the photo is not the author's own work, the photo needs to be deleted pronto. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2024 (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.