Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olatunde olalekan


 * 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Olatunde olalekan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable scientist. have not been able to find sources. removed dead links that did not provide sourcing. de-prodded Dloh  cierekim  02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Article was speedily deleted under A7 twice today and recreated each time. The subject is clearly non notable and this probably could be speedily deleted under A7 again, but will just let the AfD run to completion instead. Safiel (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer that we achieve consensus. Dloh cierekim  03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with getting an AfD consensus; but for reference, variations on the subject have been deleted under multiple article names - some of which are now create protected. See:
 * related WP:UND discussion: Requests for undeletion/Archive 105
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * related WP:UND discussion: Requests for undeletion/Archive 105
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * related WP:UND discussion: Requests for undeletion/Archive 105
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt this latest variation. A man with a job; no evidence on attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I checked the so-called references of the first instance of the article. None of the refs held. They either pointed to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the creator's sock seems to have decided that Isaac Newton's first name should in fact be abreviated to "ol": . That is the edit (—test, joke, hoax, vandalism?—) that put my attention to this article and that made me decide to carefully check the "references". - DVdm (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, salt this and properly capitalised title and block the creator. Blatant self-promotion. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and salt After a better look at the entire situation, obviously speedy deletion, salting and blocking of the author is warranted. Striking my earlier comment. Safiel (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnotable professor-wannabe with big ego. jni (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with Nyttend and Dlohcierekim; let this get obliterated in this deletion discussion. Strictly speaking this is not a speedy deletion case, although it is annoyingly close to multiple CSD criteria. jni (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Not eligible for A7 or G5 speedy deletion. The article claims that he's a member of learned societies on three continents; you have to do something really impressive for that to be the case, so we have a clear claim of importance.  It's also not a clear hoax, so we'll have to decide here at AFD whether to trust the claims.  Meanwhile, the article's been edited by lots of different people, so the "which have no substantial edits by others" part of the G5 criterion is not the case.  If this page is being repeatedly recreated, it's also better to let the AFD run its course, since you'll have a strong argument for salting.  Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the membership of various societies. Is there evidence that these are memberships by invitation rather than memberships by application? The latter would be a matter of paying your dues rather than having done "something really impressive". Without knowing specifics of the societies in question, I do note that the Canadian society's webpage features a large "Why join CSMB?" box on its front page, indicating an openness to membership by application. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt No evidence of any notability. Claiming membership of a society is not a claim to notability in my eyes (it would be different if this was a claim of being a fellow or honorary member), because societies that only have invited membership are extremely rare (and national professional societies are never in this category, think national academies and such...) In view of the repeated recreations, salting is appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm a member of PCCN. All it means is I can put those letter after my signature and get really great profession magazines. I'm by no means notable.PS I just blocked another sock and re-applied protection. Dloh  cierekim  14:23, 4 December 2013 (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.