Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olurotimi Badero


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Olurotimi Badero

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As noted on talk page by, "it does not appear this person has achieved notable coverage in the mainstream literature", so there is possibility of violation of notability guidelines. Renvoy (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't know of any reason why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OloyeApesin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC) — OloyeApesin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As per nom and CSD A7 No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A7 is obviously inappropriate: "the world's first and only fully trained cardio-nephrologist" is clearly a credible claim of significance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit torn here. He's certainly attracted some coverage in the Nigerian and American  press. I understand that plenty of spam comes out of the Nigerian press, but these outlets (one of which is "Nigeria's most respected newspaper") at least seem reliable, and they have a named author in the byline. At this point, I'm leaning weak keep on the basis of the GNG, but I'm not entirely certain: perhaps I could pester  to give an opinion on the Nigerian sources? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I’d say whilst I have my reservations as per the creation, creator and history of this article, a weak keep !vote is definitely apt. The ref bombing is quite tiring though but yes, in all, it’s mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  14:46, 16 October 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.