Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temi Olajide


 * 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 no consensus. I have considered carefully the quantity and quality of contributions on both sides and there is not a consensus to delete. As with all my AFD closures, I consider them carefully before making them and do not change my decision based on talk page messages. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Temi Olajide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apart from her interviews in some borderline sources, there is no independent in-depth coverage in any RS. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus. If she does have the multiple articles written about her (not simply mention her in passing) in Nigeria, that would indicate notability.
 * Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * keep - in a field of both sexes, she's the first Nigerian Child Sleep/Potty Training Consultant and Child Psychologist. She is co-founder of a major organization in Nigeria. Vanguard, Guardian, Punch, Bella Naija, Leading Ladies (all major media houses in Nigeria) have all done pieces on her and as such, she fits the basic criteria of notability. SuperSwift (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * keep per SuperSwift's position Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article's sources are all interviews and are not independent of her. A Google search of the subject doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – The nominator has been blocked for suspected likely socking (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America1000 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Subject of the article has been covered by multiple reliable sources which include Nigeria Guardian here, Punch Nigeria, Vanguard and a host of others and clearly passes for inclusion. Also, being the first Nigerian Certified Child Sleep consultant is something worthy to be on this encyclopaedia. Kaizenify (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the relisting Comment above: More citations from reliable sources in Nigeria ( The Guardian (Nigeria),Vanguard (Nigeria), andThe Sun (Nigeria) with a broader focus on the subject matters have been used to improve the notability of the article. SuperSwift (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Subject passes GNG. Article has been also improved enough since nomination. Orientls (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator. The people voting keep have failed to show exactly how the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject. I need to stress that these sources are primary sources and cannot be used to confer notability. The subject herself has no career to speak of apart from founding a non-notable company. The article's career section needs an overhaul; majority of the content in that section is fluff.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 13:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Versace1608, instructing a closing admin to note your misleading comment is not helpful. You wrote All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject.These feature-length articles in major newspapers The Guardian Newspaper, Sun Newspaper are definitely not primary sources and they clearly meet our definition of in-depth-coverage. I apologize, but either you are not reading these sources or you are selectively reading them. It is disruptive either way. She was listed as one of the 100's most influential, powerful, inspiring and innovative women in Nigeria by The Guardian. SuperSwift (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, you can’t say ’s comment or any other editor’s comment or point of view is disruptive as it is exactly like I said; there own point of view, you may either concur or disagree. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please pratice civility when talking to others here. I stand by what I said. All of those newspaper sources are interview sources. They cannot be used to confer notability because they are not secondary sources and are not independent of her. For your info, publications where the subject talks about themselves is not considered secondary coverage.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment that either you aren't reading sources or you are selectively reading them, if you continue to refer to this feature-length article, also this publication by The Guardian and this by The Sun Newspaper as interviews. If a user failed or refuse to get the point, not reading sources or selectively reading them and continues to argue without making an effort to see other users side of a debate, it is disruptive. SuperSwift (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this a featured length article? For crying out loud, the entire article contains six brief paragraphs. Making a newspaper's publication list does not automatically mean someone is notable. The article published by The Sun newspaper contains heavy quotes from the subject; how exactly is this independent of her? You clearly haven't fully grasp the meaning of secondary sources. I did not selectively read any sources and how exactly am I being disruptive? I am not obligated to agree with you on anything. You claim that these sources are independent and I am telling you they aren't.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject passes GNG. Six paragraphs is far and away significant coverage, and the act of including quotes in an article does not mean it cannot contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not convinced with arguments so far, for keep.I don't see much in the comprehensive secondary source that establish notability beyond all doubt. Really not a lot here, a simple small para that mentions her as a sleep consultant. I'm curious as to why so many editors are pushing to get the article kept when there is such tenuous notability. There is effectively no secondary sources that are in in-depth and that are independent of the subject. There is no other coverage, so it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, you couldn’t be more apt! Editors !voting to keep are doing so for the sake of it without substantiating it with policies. Celestina007 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would remind the both of you to stop casting aspersions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There's enough sources to meet GNG here. Most of the sources (Guardian, Vanguard, The Sun etc ) are established papers and reliable in general. The nominator's claim of no RS is clearly unfounded. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (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.