Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ade Olufeko

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. With reference to Articles for deletion/Adé Olufeko &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ade Olufeko


Even with promotion removed, it fails WP:ARTIST; sources are insufficient to satisfy the basics. Atsme 📞📧 23:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - See Articles for deletion/Adé Olufeko. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Do a search for Adeolu Olufeko. Same individual. passes surpasses notability requirements JuneHazinek (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete given the relatively recent consensus at AfD and the lack of additional sources that might not have been available then. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment VQuakr consider This source and is it possible the dated consensus on an AFD will prevent the rewritten article from being created, especially with noteworthy neutral sources? almost seems defeating after consultation with the community here to make sure previous concerns were addressed. JuneHazinek (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that fails the requirement for sources to be reliable. Deletion is inherently frustrating to the contributor, that is unfortunate but unavoidable at least to a degree. May I ask, what consultation with the community was performed? VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess its a case of differences in opinion. The frustration you speak of has been pressed onto multiple contributors as I have your idea. about consulting the community, this have been with different sections and instances on wikipedia including those interactions with admins. Without sounding to have vested interest on the living bio subject, it really comes down to a classic case of once one AFD has been reached in the past "let us make sure even if it meets notability" we wouldnt care and the obvious wiki prejudice. the article has almost no hope it seems? For whatever its worth the subject has added very unique value to the global community imho. best JuneHazinek (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs seeking attention and craftily promoting their respective platforms. What the sources reflect in Olufeko's case is common promotion of his platform Visual Collaborative, which a Google search confirms is not notable as it brings up 3 sites: the Wikipedia article, a Twitter account, and the company site. While I have no doubt that relatively unknown artists appreciate the annual events that have been promoted/hosted by Visual Collaborative, they have not achieved even the minimum standards of WP:Notability or WP:ARTIST. The same applies to Ade Olufeko whose platform may be popular among those who benefit from the promotional aspects of it, but fail WP's standards for notability. Atsme 📞📧 13:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adé Olufeko. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep All concerns / comments from Articles for deletion/Adé Olufeko has been acknowledged and rectified. This working draft should have addressed those issues. Resubmitted for main article space approval and consideration.WaleFam (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC) — WaleFam (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.