From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Patrick Oriyomi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Patrick Oriyomi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Puffy. scope_creep Talk 19:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Celestina007. 1292simon ( talk) 07:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete per above, although arguably The Guardian might be a reliable source. Bearian ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fails WP:SIGCOV. The Guardian is generally a reliable source, but multiple that are independent of each other and by different authors is required; one is not enough. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete SandDoctor and Bearian the two citations are not from The Guardian but rather from a Nigerian site guardian.ng Since the exact same content appears on a number of other sites, it appears to be paid content/ press release. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I think the Nigerian Guardian, which has been described as Nigeria's most respected newspaper is a pretty solid newspaper as newspapers go. scope_creep Talk 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
The issue is not that the source is Nigerian. The issue is that the content is paid/press release. I mentioned that it is a Nigerian source to differentiate it from The Guardian as I perceived that the above two editors mistook the citation to be from The Guardian — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The references, as indicated by all who took time to meticulously check, have been improved with more reliable sources, so that it passes WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.

That newssources are from "Nigeria" shouldn't in any way cause you to question the credibility, reputation, trustworthiness or veracity. There's such a thing as Print syndication or Web syndication which in no way, I believe, usurps Wikipedia rules. Again, Ad Meliora how do you prove that such print and web syndications are paid, as CNN, reuters, and other credible newssources, just as these ones, offer such syndication services for non-commercial use? These sources below are credible, and you can take time to check them out. scope_creep did address this. Many thanks.

Kindly let's examine some of the references judiciously:

  • [1] "Real estate expert tasks government on ease of doing business" This wasn't a trivial mention as per the above subject, but a significant coverage. Also, The Guardian (Nigeria) is a reliable source with editorial integrity. The publication is independent of the subject.
  • [2] This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also, This Day is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject.
  • [3] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from Business Day (Nigeria)
  • [4] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from The Sun (Nigeria)
  • [5] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, another one from the The Guardian (Nigeria)
  • [6] This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also, Vanguard (Nigeria) is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject. These references, therefore, are suitable to establish WP:GNG

WP:SIGCOV DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment There is exactly 6 people working in this small private company: [7]. The fact there is so much coverage of this type, suggests they are press-releases and nothing else. It is entirely unlikely the papers are listening to one man from such a small company, on the same subject, unless it is paid promotion. The person is entirely non-notable. scope_creep Talk 15:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment scope_creep This link you put out: [8] doesn't expressly state the staff strength, nothing of such. For example, I'm a departmental head of a team with a staff strength of 31. Let's be candid and fair: will it be logical to put out all the 32 pictures on a limited webpage? It only makes sense to put the head of the team! Lastly, rules are rules. If the article passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV WP:BIO, can we please keep out unproven and unfounded assumptions except verifiable thoughts. It's in no way WP:SPIP and adequately satisfies WP:WHYN. Regards. DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Before you start casting aspersions about "unproven and unfounded assumptions" from other editors, can you please provide evidence that the company has more than 6 staff? Although it is a bit tangential, because notability of the company and notability of its current CEO are separate issues. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'll need time to do more research on that. Hopefully, there'll be some reliable and independent sources that has addressed your question.Regards DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • One of the sources I found did actually point out that the organization, most likely, works with a team of realtors outside their organization, could be just two, a thousand, or more, considering the article content: [9] This article from The Guardian (Nigeria) also made mention of staff, albeit with no indication whatsoever of staff strength. I'm also trying so hard to understand scope_creep arguments. The link you posted--which isn't independent of the individual--is not enough to establish or disprove the notability of an individual, for the same reason having a million pictures of humans in suits, on your OWN webpage, wouldn't suffice! Again, for some quick education: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject! If the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, why is there so much rigmarole? Also, claiming the articles in these sources listed are paid promos because "the organization has 6 staff members" is unsubstantiated, preposterous and very ridiculous. It doesn't even matter anymore if the article gets deleted as a result of popular consensus or votes, but the points raised so far to establish or disprove notability is such a concern; it totally beggars the mind! DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Deolkint: can you put new comments at the bottom of the page per WP:TP, WP:THREAD, which is standard practice. Reference: [10] is another press-release. All the references are press-releases. scope_creep Talk 06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject operates a run of the mill real estate business and is good at PR. That’s how he gets the same story with the same publicity pic released in multiple ‘reliable’, ‘independent’ publications like The Guardian and Business Day Nigeria. Mccapra ( talk) 06:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
How about you going through the references, like the one I pointed out earlier: [11] instead of making pseudo claims? Kindly go through the content in these reliable and independent sources you've openly discredited. Regards. DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
That is a press-release you keep trying to foist on to us. Why do you keep doing that when it is clearly non-rs. scope_creep Talk 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
"Foist on us?" Who are the "us"? Is this a gangup or some sort of sockpuppetry?? I've been citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that truly establishes or disproves notability, verifiable links, the subject's significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, but your reasons why this page MUST be deleted are unfounded; no policies, no documents whatsoever! Regards. DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 02:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
It is incorrect that reasoning is unfounded, since the arguments presented by scope_creep are clearly based on WP:IS, WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG, etc. Also, accusation of sockpuppetry does not follow WP:RESPECT; if you have a genuine concern, please complete an SPI report, otherwise it's just unhelpful mud-slinging. 1292simon ( talk) 06:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Same editor that rushed to accuse me of COI when I clearly stated that I have none is talking about WP:RESPECT? Where's the good faith?? Cut me some slack! The premise of your arguments WP:IS, WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG are clearly non-supportive of your reasonings thus far. Regards DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
You didn't actually state that you don't have a COI, all you said was "I only gave an example". 1292simon ( talk) 10:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Ok, that's fine. But how did COI suddenly turn to "sockpuppeting warning?" Do you have anything against my person or my objective responses? DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Great, thanks for understanding. To answer your questions: I don't have anything against you personally, and don't recall making any "sockpuppet warning" about you. 1292simon ( talk) 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I see. Regards DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) ( talk) 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Oriyomi&oldid=985627555"