Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkanmi Vaughan


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sunkanmi Vaughan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability concerns. The only claim of notability appears to be references describing how his book is the #1 app for a specific search term in the Google Play store. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The author is Nigerian, a third world nation that was faced with recession in 2016. The author's book is popular in the country because it played a very key role in sustaining business and market ideas among the Nigerian populace during the recession. Millions of copies of the book have been sold. With over 100,000 copies sold globally. The book is currently being used as a teaching tool for Entrepreneurial Skills in a few Nigerian higher institutions of learning. The author deserves a place in the encyclopedia as in years to come, people will want to find out what stood out for him as he helped millions of negerians survive, despite the recession. I do wish you see to it please and not delete the article. Thank you.Stevedure (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Controversy can make notability. Can we find better sources? Bearian (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree The Nation Nigeria  is a national newspaper in Nigeria. And Nairaland is the biggest online forum in Africa with Editors (Moderators) who review every post before allowing such a post, if found worthy, taken to its front page. In my knowledge, I think those are worthy sources. Stevedure (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nairaland is an internet forum, it is not a reliable source. Please don't mention Nairaland again else AFD patrollers will not take you seriously.


 * Friendly tip: Any website that allows you to create content without verifying who you are can never be used as a source on Wikipedia.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's true that online forums aren't generally given much weight in discussions. More problematic is that those are both articles by Vaughan, with no evidence that anyone else is discussing them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you HandsomeBoy Stevedure (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply I hope you agree with  that controversy can make notability! I think what needs to be done now is find Better Sources Stevedure (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Are there secondary sources available?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Secondary Sources Kindly refer the following sources:, , ,

Stevedure (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep. The guardian.ng and pulse.ng sources provided by Stevedure satisfy GNG. are good, but don't provide any information on Vaughan herself. w umbolo   ^^^  11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment  - the sources given by Stevedure don't seem to satisfy Source requirements. Three seem unreliable, of the two noted as suitable by Wumbolo NJ only has 3.5 lines about him (the rest is a summary of bits of his book, so can't actually reliably cover him in detail) and the Guardian source is both stitched together from other bits, but more importantly, doesn't actually tell us anything about the individual other than he has this high positioned book. It certainly doesn't cover him in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true; I have changed my vote. w umbolo   ^^^  11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also added my own - I realised that while it was a comment, it also supported my own !vote
 * Keep. The subject in question has received significant coverage  in Reliable Sources that are independent of the subject.  Most importantly,  the article has verifiable facts. The Guardian  is foremost  newspaper in Nigeria, so as The Nation and Pulse.ng. The article  is about an author of a very popular book,  thus,  the author is notable because  of the book. I strongly  support  the keeping of the article. Thank you all. Stevedure (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "significant coverage" does not mean that the subject has to be mention in many newspapers, but that every newspaper mention must be significant, i.e. "in-depth". w umbolo   ^^^  18:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A book being notable does not guarantee the author being so. NAUTHOR being satisfied (which is not guaranteed) does not ensure the author being notable - WP:BASIC is also present and WP:GNG takes precedence. 2) The fact that certain sources are usually reliable does not mean they can't be disqualified if they draw from a heavily primary source (interviews as a common example) 3) Even ignoring the above, you'd need the sources to cover the book in detail as a review - Pulse, NeJ for example do not provide a significant review. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , are independent sources about Vaughan. 1) The sources are verifiable and are independent 2) Guardian,  The Nation,  Pulse and other sources above meet WP:GNG.  Also, controversy can make notability and the first three sources above provide maximum information about the Vaughan's controversies. Again,  Vaughan has now become notable as a result of his work .  The book, depends on the author's intellect to be excellent, hence its wide acceptability and notability. It is a property of Vaughan and could not have been that notable without references to its author. Stevedure (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Smashwords actually starts with "About me?" and continues in the first person. This is a spectacular slam-dunk at failing WP:INDEPENDENT. Additionally there's no editorial control and it's not hard to sign up and write on it, so it also fails independent and reliable that way. Earnbase is more interesting - it certainly satisfies Sig Cov on the author, and possibly does on the book (it discusses it in detail, but doesn't actually do much reviewing). As to whether the source is both reliable and independent I've swung both ways on each facet. I've set out my reasons for why I do not believe Guardian, pulse etc do not meet GNG. A book being made (partly) notable via references to its author does not mean the author is notable. In fact, if the author is notable because of the book, and the book is notable through references to its notable author you've created an endless cycle. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for being honest and objective so far. I'm glad you now accept that earnbase passes WP:GNG. I will remove the Smashwords from the references now.  And for Comprehensive  review,  this  answers the question.  Now I am satisfied  the article is a strong keep material. Stevedure
 * -  That is clearly not what I said - I stated I accepted Sig Cov was satisfied, which is 1 OF 3 requirements for a source to be a GNG-satisfying source. I specifically said I've swung both ways on the other facets. I did not say I had decided. Please do not give unclear statements of what I said. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I clearly misunderstood  your comment. Stevedure (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

- that's okay, I just wanted it to be made very clear. Reading my comment, I realise that I should have AGF more than I did, apologies. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (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.