Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gbenga Adigun

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. Fawning interviews, self-written self-praise such as this, and marketing-speak press releases are not reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adigun

[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)

Delete, the subject clearly fails minimum notability requirement. Article having a bunch of sponsored press releases masked as independent coverage of the subject. The first references from the Sun (Nigeria) is a clear sponsored post and that is evident in the headline and the body of the article presents a clear indication of PR puffery. The Second source from PM News clearly mirrors Wikipedia structure. The handler possibly used that to prove notability and game the system, and maybe a deeper check of the editor who created the page will reveal something. There are about three different articles from Daily Times (Nigeria), while one mirrors Wikipedia style and structure, the tone is clearly PR puffery, the other two articles from same source are on obscure awards. The reference number 8 from the sun is the subject’s own writeup. Source number 12 from Independent is a single mention of the subject. Almost all other sources bear resemblance of PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very comprehensive nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Mccapra (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable. I don't want to bother on source assessment on this. It is crystal clear by reading the pieces from these coverages. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He comfortable meet at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC. With the nominator assessment, Qualify individual might end up been deleted... On google he has major hits. See below

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Here he was listed by a notable Daily Times (Nigeria) newspapers among top 3 real estate developers [6] and several awards to prove his notability by major newspapers in Nigeria. And for WP:GNG same apply see [7], [8], [9],As a Fellow Institute of Consulting (FIC) and Fellow Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (FCIPD) he comfortably pass WP:NACADEMIC #3 [10].Calyx2s (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to be on the side of keep, as I find a lot of editors nowadays rush to nominate AfDs. Unless, it is absolutely not possible, one should aim to keep the articles. This article has more than two reliable citations from reputed newspapers. I beg to disagree with a senior editor. The CEO Forum seems to be reliable as a reputed UN organisation attended the meet and collaborated with them. I feel the article meets the WP: GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. Your statement itself says it all that you do not understand the issue of unreliable sources raised. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Calyx2s, All these sources listed are "PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable" as stated by @Vanderwaalforces. These are same sources present in the article when it was nominated and nothing has changed since then. The first source you listed above is just a passing mention and everyday, people are invited to speak on certain issues in the media and that does not count for notability. The number 2 is nothing but a PR statement from either the subject of the article or award organisation itself. The number 3 is a statement or press release but assuming that is a reliable source, is about their business organisation that only give a passing mention to the subject of this article. Your sources numbers 4 and 5 are about an event his association organised which he moderated, several people spoke at the event and he received passing mention in one or two paragraphs. It appears that you deliberately repeated sources in the article and in this AFD to create impression of notability because you listed some sources twice and those sources would not be analysed twice. The Number 7 you listed above is 100% PR puffery and it is a clear indication that you do not have a proper understanding of what reliable source is all about. The number 8 counts towards notability but unfortunately it is not enough. Your number 9 is a complete PR packaging. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am skeptical by the nominator reasons, checking the date and year of publications by the publishing house, it has months and years intervals and most if not all have byline to show it independent from the subject. He meets at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC And the above reference by Calyx shows he is notable too as been a fellow of a highly recognized institute pass WP:NACADEMIC. 5, 6, 8 sources are ok to pass Notability they are significant, independent, Reliable (SIR). And on Source one by the Sun [11] highlighted by the nominator, I went deeper to check if he actually had the TVC News appearance the answer is yes, type TOPIC: AN INSIGHT ON HOW LOW AND MIDDLE CLASS CAN OWN SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSES IN NIGERIA on YouTube you will see it on the TV Media YouTube channel. Shows the publication is verifiable .Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article is saturated with advertorial/PR material, therefore it fails WP:GNG. Off all sources reviewed, none is a reliable source to support notability. Though the sources are from reliable secondary media sources widely cited in this encyclopedia, the press articles used in creating this page are all PR efforts. The creator of this page is likely to be working for a PR Firm. They currently have two of their articles in WP:AFD and the two of them use same media sources, the writing are similar and the authors are mostly same. It is not a coincidence that should be overlooked. Their promotional articles in AFD are Gbenga Adigun and JOM Charity Award. See these two different sources and their bylines from The Sun (Nigeria) cited in both pages [12] and [13] written by same person (John Mike). See these two sources in both pages from Daily Times (Nigeria) and take note of their bylines even though they are covering different beats [14] and [15] written by same person ( Ihesiulo Grace). Now see these two different sources from Leadership cited in both pages [16] and [17] written by same person (Christopher Odey). Also see these two different sources from the PM News cited in both pages [18] and [19] written by same person (Taiwo Okanlawon). It is safe to say that this editor and those commenting Keep are working for same PR firm or at best are sockpuppets. Closing admin, please, take note of these editors commenting keep, they are most likely to be working together. Piscili (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My account was created 9 months ago and some of these publications were existing long before I join Wikipedia. Check my contribution on Wikipedia has been from a neutral perspective and not working for any PR agency. I feel you and the nominator might be using this account to discredit the article because I could see the desperation to discredit it. Because he went ahead to report to the admin. And also nominated this article and the award so he won't be able to scale through with WP:ANYBIO

Piscili , face the issues instead of trying to discredit a credible publishing house. And your 3 votes was strictly on the 3 article the nominator nominated, that an eyebrows that you both are working together if not same editor and it your first time voting at AFD. Because him/she (nominator) asking on Administrator board if he can remove sources on the article really tells the desperation. How can you remove a newspaper sources that are reliable per WP:NGRS? The article has potential of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and certainly with WP:NACADEMIC as a fellow of a highly prestigious institute of learning. Calyx2s (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources from an article before nominating it for AFD or if PR spam articles such as yours could be removed after the nomination, and the nominator was instructed that the sources should not be removed while in AFD so other editors could assess them. I saw the ANI, and decided to check their AFD nominations and found the three they recently nominated. I commented on all three because those articles have to go. Are you also the creator of the third spam article? My comments were based on my own little experience. Please respond to the issue of the questionable sources. In your other promotional article (JOM Charity Award), Riposte97 commented "that having looked though the sources, each seem to be substantially written by the same person". I am not the only editor who has spotted these PR spams. But why are you taking it personal? At this point, I urge you to declare your interests in the two WP:Spams. A good faith editor would be quiet and learn from the analysis of the sources but your continuous defense of the spams is what I can't understand. I am not here to fight but to contribute out of my own little understanding. If the community decides to keep your spam articles I have nothing to lose. Warm regards. Piscili (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your word and interpreting for the nominator The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources you both are probably working together. Read his comment over there, he knows the implications now you are defending him instead of you to face the issues.

I know you will curve your decision for coming to AFD based on his report on WP:ANI. It seems you are not ready for policy discussion, instead calling a newspaper publications spam, check the edit of the award history when an editor touches the contents I never try to reverse it because I have no conflict or whatsoever. I drop the stick here Calyx2s (talk) 06:52, 20 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.