Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oluwafunmilayo Oni


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject currently fails notability guidelines. If anyone wants the article userfied so that they can work on it if/when more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oluwafunmilayo Oni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested A7 speedy as makes some claim to significance. However, does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are weak and PR-heavy. Could be worthy of an article in the future but not yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep — The Guardian, just as its Woman supplement is a reliable source. The style of writing used there is typical of the supplement and is not advertising - it also varies per country. That's very similar to how they do it when featuring individuals. YNaija is a RS news site that covers the country. Both sources cover the subject in detail and are not passing mentions. At the very least, the subject passes WP:BASIC.Tamsier (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, there is no connection between The Guardian (Nigeria) and The Guardian, although I am sure both are equally reliable so that's probably beside the point. The question in my mind is not reliability but depth, volume, and significance of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources cited are not passing mentions but an in-depth coverage of the subject which is a Wiki policy. Can you point me to any Wiki policy that specifically mentions the word "volume" for the purposes of AfD? I have heard of "multiple" and significant coverage, but not "volume". Multiple mean more than one (i.e. multiple sources, more than one source - which there is). Significant coverage mean an in-depth overage of the subject and not passing mentions - which there is. However, I have not read/seen any Wiki policy regarding AfD that mentions "volume". If there is, perhaps you can point me to the right policy. As per our policy, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.". Multiple, again, mean more than one, and for our purposes, not from the same source - which is what we have here. Therefore, can you tell me which policy you are referring to when you mentioned "volume"? As it currently stand, your other rationale for nominating this article goes contrary to our policy. I am therefore waiting for your rationale for "volume".Tamsier (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly fails notability guidelines. Anyone can get a reliable source to publish an item about them, what will be more difficult is to get MULTIPLE sources to give different perspectives on a subject, which I'm not seeing here. While Guardian is a top level source, let me point out that YNaija is a mid level source (in terms of its reliability). I'm just not convinced that the subject has been covered enough to have a Wikipedia article. She's doing something commendable, but that is not notability. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * delete: while her work seems important but we will have to wait for her to have more press coverage.Viztor (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not yet notable, and promotional article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep : The subject is a product of a campaign(Wiki loves women radio) initiated in Nigeria to bridge the information gap that exists about women on the English Wikipedia where amazing women are being invited for radio and then profiled on Wikipedia.. But still the subject passes WP:BASIC and was the center of a very reliable source The Guardian (Nigeria); it's a work in progress as a stub and will be work on more with other reliable sources. Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative. Thanks. Kaizenify (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that this editor is the article's creator; while this doesn't invalidate their arguments, it does demonstrate an obvious bias in their vote that should be considered. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the prose from the The Guardian (Nigeria) article is Oni discussing herself. The first two paragraphs seem fine, but the entire rest of the article is, by definition, not independent. I'm also confused what is meant by: "Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative." I haven't looked enough into it yet, but right now I'm leaning Delete, because all I'm seeing is two paragraphs from an online Nigerian newspaper.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  01:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A delete closure right now would be completely defensible, but out of deference to WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, I'm going to relist this to see if a clearer consensus emerges.
 * DELETE - Subject does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: Notable subjects have attracted attention over a significant period of time. While the Guardian Nigeria is a reliable source, the WP:GNG requires secondary sources, which this interview is not. Additionally, even were there more and better sources (by GNG definition) that would only create presumption of notability, as in presumably there is sufficient source material with which to write a biography — which does not exist yet. There is nothing that states that two articles means guaranteed notability, so it should not be read as 'multiple' means 'two and in'. This is turning the guideline on its head. WP:WHYN explains further why the current coverage of the subject is insufficient for notability. Others have made valid delete arguments which I won't repeat here. ogenstein (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep> Clearly meets GNG, adequate coverage in neutral, reliable sources. Underrepresented topic, often a bit harder to find source material, but the sources provided here are high-quality and reliable.  Montanabw (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your "underrepresentation" argument. Neither the topical nor the geographical scope looks like areas where a notable subject wouldn't get sufficient references. Since the internet boom in 2010s, Nigeria is one of the most digitally active countries. And she's doing something that news portals will want to cover. The issue I see here is that she hasn't gotten enough impact to attract more significant coverage, which may come if she remains consistent in what she is doing. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * comment; i clearly would have just skip commenting here and just wait for the consensus but with HandsomeBoy comment about "underrepresentation argument" will not make me. This is a Nigeria subject where the media don't care to cover your work even if meeting cogent needs and worthy of news portals until you make a move and this is one of the cogent areas as Nigeria Wikimedia community we are focusing for our Wiki Loves Women project campaign that the media should always do the needful and that's why we are in partnership with a lot of media houses now. There are lot of Nigeria women right now worthy of a Wikipedia article but cant be here as the Nigerian media isn't motivated to do a story on them until they make the move themselves and that's a real information gap; i clearly understand Wikipedia guidelines about notability but when HandsomeBoy who is a Nigerian and familiar with some of the challenges comment like this, then i have to react. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my point. Does gender bias exist on Wikipedia? Yes. Are African content less represented than western topics? Yes. But putting that into context in my assessment of this article. I don't believe that is what is coming to play here. Just because someone is a woman and she's doing something inspirational, does not mean automatic notability. To make myself clearer, example of scenarios where gender gap is very operational on Wikipedia is women in sports, etc. Most of my articles on Wikipedia are cinema-related, I can tell you that there is little disparity between both gender in that topic area. Men and women in films are covered almost equally in Nigeria. Same applies to musicians, however in terms of genres of music, there can be a convincing argument. Now coming to this article, I want you to ask yourself, if Olufunmilayo Oni was a man doing exactly what she is doing will that increase/reduce her coverage significantly? Again, if she was focused on removing the number of male school drop-outs, will that change anything? Speaking about coverage, There are a number of popular Nigerian news portals that generally support sensational topics that are not profit-oriented. If she continues to do this, she will get one of the numerous credible individual service award for her dedication to humanity which will make her pass N:BASIC. When I speak of topical scope, I mean what she's doing is something that people/government will love to read about, which is why she is even likely to get at least some coverage without even being notable.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And when I speak of 2010s internet boom, what I mean is that the way I assess the coverage for a Nigerian musician who peaked in 1990s is different from another musician that rose in 2016 for example. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per my rationale above, the most I can find about this subject in the way of reliable coverage is two paragraphs in an interview from The Guardian. I exclude the rest of the references in the article because they are, in order: a podcast, a group blog, an article from UNICEF that has literally nothing to do with Oni, and a personal blog. Aside from that, I turned up nothing that isn't a blog or an interview. This article is pretty obviously WP:TOOSOON and should be removed until Oni receives more substantial, reliable, independent coverage. As of right now, fails WP:BASIC by a significant margin.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This pains me as the subjects like these need more space on Wikipedia, but she fails WP:BASIC here, since she fails the "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." part. Besides The Guardian Nigeria one which is WP:SIGCOV, that is pretty much it (my searches brought a passing mention in a book). WP:TOOSOON. She may be notable in the future, but not right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and any notability guidelines as she lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV and notability is not inherited either per WP:NOTINHERITED. I will also add that the need for diversity on Wikipedia should not come at the expense of lowered notability standards for certain groups of people. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2019 (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.