Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tolu' A Akinyemi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence doesn’t satisfy GNG & also doesn’t satisfy WP:POET. A Before I conducted only shows result majorly for a different individual with a similar name who is coincidentally a poet as well. The few google hits about our subject of discussion are links to sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@ celestina007 Acorrding to you, the page was nominated for lacking "reliable sources independent" despite the modification citing the british library as per WK: V guidelines. Now you question the nobility of the subject as against WP:N which says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable". It is your position as and editor to confirm these sources not base on your assumption. @versace1608 also alleged that the books are not discussed in reliable sources, if googlebooks, goodreads, and the british library is not reliable then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain7days (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject does not meet any criterion outlined in WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. None of books have been discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 13:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @, you need to understand that the subject of our discussion does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR/WP:POET From the aforementioned policies under #3 it states that subject of your article doesn’t fulfill that or #1 #2 & #4 of the aforementioned policies. Furthermore you keep mentioning verifiability as if anyone is implying that subject of your article is a hoax, no! No one is saying that. Stating that someone is an author/poet does  not mean he or she is automatically notable. That’s very much absurd For example stating that “Celestina007 is an editor on Wikipedia and an author of short books in real life hence she is notable & deserves a Wikipedia page” Nope! that would be inane as that is not how things work in this collaborative project. Using that analogy you should understand by now that his mere existence and the fact that he is author and a poet doesn’t make him notable, what does however is if he satisfies our general notability guidelines criteria or any criterion from WP:AUTHOR which he doesn’t sadly.Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. None of the subject's books meet any criterion outlined in WP:NBOOK. I ran a Google search and did not find reliable coverage (critical reviews). An author simply having his book published on Googlebooks.com or Amazon.com is not reliable grounds for keep. Goodreads is simply a social cataloging platform owned by Amazon. It is wrong to assume that books automatically meet our notability requirements simply because they've been listed on popular retailers' websites.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Two of the author's book was and still listed as bestsellers in African Poetry, his book has also been used to raise funds for the old and less priviledge,and also met the criteria for threshold standard as outlined in WP:NBOOK #1 and the threshold standard #2(1)(1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain7days (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP as per WP:AUTHOR/WP:POET #3 #4(c)(b)&(d) see this this (ranked #24,#44,#65 different books same author bestseller) this also and as per NBOOK and other considerations #2.1 #2.1.1 please do see this this this and this by virtue of criteria #1 thank you
 * Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Also, if you read WP:NBOOK #1 actually has a footnote stating that Amazon is not considered a reliable bestseller list and #2.1.1 it states that being registered in a national library is an exclusionary standard (so if you aren't registered you are de facto) and not inclusionary (being registered makes the subject automatically notable). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please find the author in the British Library catalogue HERE--Olatunde Brain (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know and as I said #2.1.1 clearly states that being included in a national library does not guarantee notability/ Rather, it states that books that are not registered are not notable with a few rare exceptions, which is why it is an exclusionary standard'. GPL93 (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * then your vote is incongruity with your comment, if you say 'being registered makes the subject automatically notable' then your vote shouldn't be Delete. If you agree that the subject is exclusionary then you agree that it is impossible for a non-notable book to be listed in a notable library as listed in #2.1.1 and Resources even though the criteria says meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, it also goes on to say whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not (notable). Therefor only notable books can be found in notable libraries. See exclusionary for what i mean.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Exclusionary in this case means that books that aren't included in national libraries are almost always not notable and therefore are to be excluded from being considered notable, setting up an automatic disqualifier. So the argument that it is included in a national library is simply establishing that it meets a bare minimum standard for notability to be possible, not that it is actually notable. On Wikipedia, standards that make subjects notable in spite of lack of coverage are referred to as inclusionary standards, (IE x meets Y standard and therefore is to be included). GPL93 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please most likely was the word used not almost always when you say almost always then you are saying it is normally,commonly, mainly, habitually always happen to be non-notable.  But instead most likely was used  which means most presumably,probably,expectedly happen to be non-notable, so it is a probability hence Necessity and sufficiency The assertion that a statement is a "necessary and sufficient" condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true, or simultaneously false, which means that 'If non-notable books are registered in notable library, then notable books are registered in non-notable libraries also', then the question is; 'is the notable book at the non-notable library worthy of notability? if yes, 'then the non-notable book in a notable library is worthy of notability too'. You know why? because the caliber of readers and researchers or audience the notable library will attract to it will propel it notability same goes to that of a notable book in a non-notable library, However this is not 'almost always' it is 'most likely' because it's not always true. That is why it is a threshold for consideration, not an automatic disqualifier as you stated except otherwise you want to point that to me from the criteria.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should not have been as blunt in my terms when it came to wording But the point was that being registered in a national library does not ensure notability for a book. Either way we are straying from the matter at hand. My delete vote stands as there is not enough in terms of independent reliable coverage about the subject to pass GNG, nor does the subject pass NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * it's funny how everyone keeps going back and forth, your above comment is an invalid form of argument, please fact-check GNG in the article's references as i have cited in discussions before now, i didn't just create this article, it is because there are many articles on the mainspace that are similar to this. some of them don't even have enough sources and was listed as stubs. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR due to lacking WP:SIGCOV in independent third-party sources.. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 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.