Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunde Adegbola


 * 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 keep. S warm  ♠  06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tunde Adegbola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability to meet our primary inclusion criteria Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article has a source from the New York Times, to pass GNG, I found also Adegbola… 60 cheers for pioneer ICT, digital engineer in The Guardian (Nigeria) and this; and mentions in books: here and here. He is a guest lecturer. And I also found these blogs which show that he is much talked about: this, this. I also think that creating the Yoruba keyboard is a notable achievement. The article and the sourcing need improvement, though. Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires a significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources and that I'm not seeing for the subject of this article. Majority of the sources you brought here are unreliable. Three of the sources you pointed out are personal blog and the only reliable source I can see is the "Guardian News", I can't even see the one that linked to the "NYT" and even if I see them, they are not enough to establish notability. I really don't enjoy wasting time on irrelevant discussion, if u can point to the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is in-depth, it's ref # 5 in the article. The blogs I mentioned above are clearly marked as such, and should be considered only as collateral to the more important reliable sources, to get context. No need to withdraw, other users may opine. Kraxler (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think a couple paragraphs in the New York Times article, and the Guardian (Nigeria) article listed above, are enough for WP:GNG, but the article is currently far out of proportion to what those sources can support, and the rest of the sources are not good. It should be stubbed back to material that has reliable secondary sources only. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see how WP:GNG is met here. WP:GNG requires significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. If two sources satisfy WP:GNG (the NYT and Guardian in this case), my wife and son would have been the subject of Wikipedia article long time ago. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by your response. Are you claiming that (1) two is not greater than one, (2) The NYT and Nigeria Guardian are not reliable, (3) the NYT and Guardian articles are not independent of each other or the subject, or (4) a full article about his work and another article with three paragraphs about his work are not significant coverage? If none of these is what you are claiming, then how does the coverage fail to be multiple, reliable, independent, and significant? As for your family, see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After another look, I agree that the two sources address the subject of the article in detail and that is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. On this note, any patrolling admin should close this debate as Keep. Neither my wife nor my son is a wikipedian to see WP:WAX. I probably do not have a clue of why you pointed me to WP:WAX considering the fact that I never insinuated that any of them should have an article and if they must have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will write about them here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re WAX, it was intended as a simpler argument than that: the fact that your wife and son don't have an article is not persuasive, because maybe they are notable and nobody sufficiently independent to write an article has yet noticed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment He has one published academic paper that has been cited 5 times. I don't see him passing under anything but WP:ACADEMIC. The NYT coverage isn't about him, it's about African languages and mentions him. That isn't being the subject of the NYT article, that's a passing mention.--Savonneux (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His name is mentioned 5 times, in several paragraphs, in context with more info about his field of expertise. That's called "in-depth" here at AfD. Besides, he's a practical academic, he makes things like the Yoruba keyboard, and the Yoruba speech recognition software. These things aren't included in any scholar database, I'm afraid. Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2015 (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.