Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Adediran


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Adediran

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to meet the general or biographical notability guidelines. Receives only passing coverage in just two Google News results, and I cannot find any other independent sources that may indicate notability. -- Lear's Fool 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  --   -- Lear's Fool 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  --   -- Lear's Fool 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --   -- Lear's Fool 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just a CV for a solicitor. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Autobiographical. No evidence to indicate notability in either news items or law journals. Quite a few self-written articles on the internet, but none I could find are peer-reviewed. Subject only indicates involvement in one minor law case that received scant news coverage. Subject is using Wikipedia as his own personal web space to advertise his business with a poorly written CV. 83.243.58.158 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unambiguous advertising - just two references: the first is a broken link and the second is for a web page selling his book. The two external links are for his own website. 78.149.91.252 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG — I found only one story about him in Google news and it mentioned him only trivially, as the solicitor in the case the article was actually about. And for an article with so little in the way of sourcing, it seems very puffed up with detail. As the editors above already state, this comes across less as an informative article on somebody that readers might already have a reason to seek out information about, and more as a piece of advertising. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (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.