Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayode Ajulo (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Promotional content remved. (non-admin closure)  dud  hhr  Contribs 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Kayode Ajulo
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Possible covert UPE G11 borderline eligible promotional article on a non notable politician and lawyer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article creator has stated they are not doing un-paid editing (UPE) on their talk page but read a profile and found the subject lacked a Wikipedia article.Citing (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs some cleanup for language and clarity (and also more specific sourcing) but it looks like there are enough things written about the subject to merit an article.Citing (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure how reliable the given sources are but it seems like he gets mentioned in (e.g.) The Guardian.Citing (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I’m willing to analyze the sources, the first source is pr sponsored, the second is an extended announcement, that is, both WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPTH are not satisfied as required by GNG, the third source is definitely not SIGCOV. The Guardian source is no longer a flagship source as it was once here in Nigeria and are one of such sources that should be used with caution as more often than not they fail to expressly disclose when a piece is sponsored. I honestly do not see how GNG is met, you can ask me more questions if you need further clarifications. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @ You seem more familiar with this than me so I'll defer to you.Citing (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think this is UPE, having looked at the editing, although it may involve COI. I'd also tend to say the subject is likely notable, given this `large array of articles in the Guardian.ng, although I am not entirely sure of how to judge the reliability of the publication.  --- Possibly &#9742; 08:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll change that to Keep. He is widely mentioned and quoted in the press, according to a Google news search. The fact that he was kidnapped in 2011 as a political candidate also generated some press; I added a few sources for that. I have the overall impression that he is a well-known figure who appears frequently in Nigerian and African news sources. --- Possibly &#9742; 08:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, the problem is none of those sources counts towards notability, allow me explain, the first source isn’t SIGCOV, it describes events around him but not he himself with WP:INDEPTH, the second source linked has no editorial oversight, the third and fourth source are yet to possess a reputation for fact checking the remaining two sources also do not have a reputation for fact checking, and more often than not, dubious sources as they fail to disclose when a piece is sponsored or not. The Nigerian media landscape is one I’m very much familiar with, I am happy to clarify things further if you require me too. Undoubtedly there are mentions here and there but not any that satisfy SIGCOV. I would have drawn an analysis table but I’m weak and still recovering from a surgery. I can state categorically that this is definitely an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, sorry for the double ping, can you please take a look at this conversation, with pertaining the Nigerian Guardian source because lately the Guardian source is no longer considered de-facto reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * what you are saying does not sway me. I think there are quite obviously enough sources available for GNG. If you have clear evidence that this is an ADMASQ then that should go to the paid editing email. Paid editing on its own is not a reason to delete, as far as I know. It's a reason to examine and clean up, and then delete if notability fails.  --- Possibly &#9742; 17:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I’m not looking to sway you, I have brought this to AFD, if you can’t comprehend sources and tell a reliable source from a reliable piece or tell when a piece is a sponsored or an extended announcements not fulfilling SIGCOV, that’s really no concern of mine, it’s many people who can’t tell the difference so I’m unfazed by your rationale. Oh well as is customary, in the famous words of  I have unwatched the page as my job here is completed. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can read sources just fine, thanks.  --- Possibly &#9742; 17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the promotional content has been removed. With coverage found in Google search which include from Guardian, The Nation, Sunnews to mention a few show the subject passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC, also his conferment as the Mayegun Aare Onakakanfo of Yorubaland 1 2 also contribute to his inclusion. The subject is a well-known lawyer here in Nigeria especially with his very vocal critics on issues and against the government; lastly, considering that the article was brought here exactly 10 minutes the article creator created it isn't fair enough as a proper WP:Before would have led to the nominator improving it first or to draftify it and the accusation of UPE is unfound aswell as the rationale for the image was explained here and it's just a naive mistake of claiming own work. Kaizenify (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (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.