Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò


 * 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 Snow keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seems like this was a bad faith nomination by that IP, as a lot of people have mentioned. I'll amend my original statement: it was an issue of having access to the Wikipedia Library, which means IPs usually won't get access to it. So it was a good faith nomination, but some sources were paywalled/otherwise locked. (non-admin closure) Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò

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

Per an IP on WT:AFD: failing WP:BIO. More like looking to get hits to their website but has links. Doing this on their behalf. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 20:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As the nominator I put on the pages, I do not feel after reading the sources this entry is justified to be here. It is a 23-24 year old someone working now as a professor who wrote 2 books and did some interviews. I do not feel it meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTABLE. Seems more like an ad trying to get more hits on their Twitter as that is the only link to them and two or three of the sources show he is a professor. The others don’t prove much to meet the criteria. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the nominator, you do not get to !vote. It also appears that the nominator has not carried out a search for additional sources per WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle I did and also this had to be put up by someone else since I only edit via IP so I am allowed to add my reason in full. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, have simply struck your !vote in bold, so it isn't double-counted by the bot. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep his two books have been widely reviewed and he passes WP:AUTHOR. A rare exception to the general rule that assistant professors are not notable. Jahaza (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza I would have to disagree with you. The sources are small (a paragraph mentioning his book), the second is an interview (nothing to do with being an author, as anyone who writes a book can be interviewed by anyone and posted), the third is a reprint from a newsletter that recommended it be read (think book club), and the 4th source for his books is yet another interview. I fail to see how it would pass WP:AUTHOR under any of the 4 bullet points it has to meet as a few select sources is no where near widely reviewed. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources aren't small. Rather you haven't looked for the sources. For deletion, we don't rely on what is currently in the article. Anyways, for Reconsidering Reparation, I found academic reviews in Mind, Ethics, Philosophical Quarterly, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Race & Class, and the British Journal of Educational Studies and popular reviews in Bookforum and The Friend. For Elite Capture, I found reviews in The New Yorker, Bookforum, Austrailian Book Review, Lateral, Jacobin, The Point, and the European Journal of Social Theory among others. This was all easily found with Google.Jahaza (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As for me (I kinda nominated it on behalf of another user, after all)... not sure. WP:BEFORE was a bit hard considering another professor with the exact same name (with the same article creator!), but it seems like this professor may go either side of the GNG pass criteria. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah no nvm keep, seems like that IP made this nomination in bad faith. I can't really close as I voted keep, but this sounds like a WP:SNOW situation. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you used Wikipedia Library yet? Looks like you qualify. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle Why don’t you use it and add to it? You are allowed to if you feel you can get it better than it is? I did what I can do but then you put it on someone else after accusing me of not doing WP:BEFORE. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is so much content in the sources already cited, as well as the articles that turn up in Google, that it will take a very long time to add. This AfD discussion is a waste of time. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle Then don’t participate and please don’t edit other users comments. That violates the rules. Vote how you want and we will see which way it goes. That is what this process is about. If you don’t want to add to the article “with all of these sources” on a 22/23 year old who has a PhD then don’t do it. That is up to you. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to help. You seem unfamiliar with the rules. And I like to promote Wikipedia Library to users who qualify. Have a good day. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle Helping does not include telling someone how to do research, I too ran him through Google and all the pages that came up are not qualified sources. The edit you just did on the page is not exactly correct either but that is a different story. Striking out others comments in an AFD is not allowed. It’s actually not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I do know the rules. Calling this “a waste of time” and the edit comments you have made can also be taken as a personal attack but I’m going to assume you “know all the rules” since you assumed “I don’t know the rules”. You too have a good day child. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment It is practically impossible to earn a PhD without being at least being 27 years of age. Take in 4 years for Bachelors, 2 years on Masters and about 3-4 years to earn your PhD. 18 is average on graduating high school, 22 to get your bachelor’s, 24 to have your masters and 27 min to earn your PhD. Granted their are very rare rare cases where they can get it a year or two earlier. But the article states that this year he would be 23 or 24 years old. So he has to be much older than that. I cannot find any sources of his actual age or date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... the article makes it seem like he is 33, not 23. So that argument's out of the window. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nonsense, anyway. I received my D.Phil. when I was 24, and there was nothing unusual about that. Lots of people of 24 or 25 did as well. Athel cb (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @LilianaUwU You are correct. Math escapes me sometimes. I have struck out my comment. Thank you for politely correcting me. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plainly notable – sources already cited include The Chronicle of Higher Education and New York magazine as well as Jewish Currents and Grist, while others include The Nation and openDemocracy. The animus expressed here toward the article subject by IP editor(s) is jarring and seemingly baseless, and carries the unfortunate implication that its creator wrote it in bad faith, which is very unlikely. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR, his two books were both only published in the last year or so but they already have 99 and 71 citations respectively on google scholar, which indicate that he's widely read and cited. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 00:59, 22 May 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.