Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abiodun Kumuyi


 * 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 redirect to William Kumuyi. Mifter (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Abiodun Kumuyi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A CSD-A7 was rejected by as  'Coverage in reliable sources' . I challenge not only that assertion, but I also fail to see where the article demonstrates significance or importance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I'm not sure if this is a WP:CIR issue or something else, but the number of baseless declines has been growing in the last few weeks. There is no assertion of significance in this article, much less notability. A7 applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject's the spouse of a notable person, which means, at worst, it should be merged or redirected. Hence A7 does not apply. Adam9007 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that simply being a spouse of a notable somehow guarantees at worst a redirect. That's news to me. But in fairness, being "editor in chief of the Christian Women Mirror" could be seen as something worth an Afd? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source for that shows it is the magazine of her husband's megachurch, which to me is not a credible claim of significance given the context. I'm fine with letting the AfD run now that it is here, but I disagree with the decline. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:FAILN - "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages". From WP:INVALIDBIO - "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B". The purpose of CSD is to quickly delete stuff that obviously has no chance of anything other than delete in a discussion so as not to clog up XfD. I explain this in more detail here (WP:A7M is also a good read). So it seems both common sense and the guidelines say that the worst case scenario in such cases is a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Key word there is may, its not required, and probably shouldn't be included unless the person did something notable in their own right or had a special significance to the article subject beyond just being married. All we know about this woman is that her husband appointed her to be the editor of the magazine that served his church. That's not a credible assertion of significance, and I don't see a redirect as being needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still not an A7 though: further investigation is needed to determine the best course of action. CSD is for cases where deletion is extremely obvious on the very face of the page. Adam9007 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (edit conflict): Being a spouse or other relative of someone else with an article surely brings no exemption from CSD A7, hence WP:NOTINHERITED? The independent sources in the article relate to a remarriage and give little more than passing mention of the deceased. Indeed one indicates that the subject had lived outside the "public glare". She does seem to have had appointed positions within the church started by her husband, including "editor-in-chief of the well-circulated Women Mirror magazine published by the church", and there is a bylined biographical piece here but I am not seeing enough to suggest distinct encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7, as explained above. I have not once ever said that notability is inherited. Adam9007 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are unreferenced, poorly written, and undisclosed paid created articles we should be talking about & not a good quality article like the above. Let's focus on real issues bothering this environment. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 02 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG which is Wikipedia's basic yardstick when establishing notability of an articles subject. If spouse of the aforementioned individual is more notable than she is, it is of no concern to anybody as subject of our discussion has been mentioned in popular recognized press numerous times I really do not see subject coming short of WP:GNG guidelines
 * Redirect to William Kumuyi. Notability is not inherited. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: A redirect to the page on William Kumuyi or Deeper Life Bible Church might be possible, though neither page currently mentions the subject. Adding text from the current page to either of these targets might amount be WP:UNDUE in the absence of clear notability evidence? AllyD (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Being the wife of a prominent preacher is not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. A search of the subject shows circulated news coverage about her death. Apart from this source, no other source discusses the subject independently.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's surprising how I wasn't able to get many significant coverage on this woman. I ordinarily would have predicted she will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. She is extremely popular in Nigerian Christian circles, especially with the women. I agree with Adam that speedy deletion shouldn't apply in this case. Darreg (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.