Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayo Vincent


 * 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 draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nominally no consensus between draftify and deletion, but there's a fairly clear consensus that the current sourcing does not establish notability. signed,Rosguill talk 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ayo Vincent

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a gospel singer and music director that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:SIGCOV. A whole list of non-notable awards and non-rs from the church website. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Jamiebuba, Do you find issue with the Business Day article? Although many of the sources do not provide significant coverage, this single source provides a lot of the information for the article (to its own detriment, for sure, as there are some copyvio issues, though that can be addressed). Significa liberdade (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the copy edit issues of this article has now been fully addressed, given the guardians and help from @Significa liberdade the article shouldn't need any further edits for now, as previously suggested edits from editors after the moving of the article to main space sort of changed the entire context of the article, deleting citations and this was not meant to be. This article was rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale before it was moved to main space. I believe further contribution to the article was that they were trying to make the article better and I honestly thank them for their effort however it almost didn't make the article make any more sense. I have been able to make the necessary adjustments to the article now, taking from their edits while also addressing the concerns you have raised. I believe it should comply with the Wikipedia standards now as it did before. I would appreciate you give it another look and I would appreciate suggestions in making further improvements to it so that a consensus can be reached in removing the deletion notice tags placed on the article @Jamiebuba. Thanks Samlodias (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting, this isn't the same article as the one that was nominated for AFD deletion. Does this make any difference? If not, would draftification be acceptable? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment re: - the Business Day article is a sponsored post. I haven't had a chance to go through every ref, but they do appear to be low-quality. Lean delete for now.-KH-1 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not believe so, because in the said Business Day article it was clear that it was talking as regards the latest musical release, which is evident but however, I believe the news platform in their duties, did their due diligence to add a concise biography about the individual, dating from previous track records of the individual in question. I believe other references supports or buttress the information as regards the individual and for that reason, i believe it is an article that can be improved upon rather than being deleted. So, I do kindly solicit that the article shouldn't be deleted but given a room for more information addition and improvements in the Wikipedia space. ￼ Samlodias (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * @Liz Draftification would be fine in its current state. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the current state would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think draftify is fine. But this cannot remain in article space the way it is. A ~500 word article has 19 references to a ~700 word sponsored post also labeled "advertisement". Just to be clear, that Business Day source is not independent or reliable. I would not even recommend such a source for ABOUTSELF claims, as the ad on the whole is self-serving, but it's also not even clear that the claims are from the subject. If not draftify, delete WP:NOTPROMO &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * This content is based on news coverage that was either bought and paid for (Business Day), or blatantly promotional (MyBioHub), or self-published (Starting Over: Tolani). It should not be in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the current sourcing does not support an article, and nor can I find anything that does. I'm not sure I see the use in draftifying, but I am not opposed to it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 2 September 2023 (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.