Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poju Oyemade

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 Moved to draft. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poju Oyemade

Poju Oyemade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems to be well-known but not notable as defined by WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article has four sources: three of them ([1], [2], [3]) are not independent of the subject because they regurgitate his views. The other one ([4]) comes up blank. Googling turns up numerous results but I have not been able to find coverage that doesn't just paraphrase some statement of his. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been able to access source 4. The website Legit.ng is a big provider of news in Nigeria. So it might be reliable. The article itself, however, reads like a promotion for the subject and does not seem intellectually independent. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:RELPEOPLE. Celestina007 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment reference 4 in your nomination is working for me, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, I've tried again and it worked. Don't know what was wrong when I first tried. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 & Modussiccandi, it indeed works just fine & more often than not they seem to be a reliable source but that particular piece is as sponsored post as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment will suggest for it to be moved to draft, so as to be worked upon because he seem notable with online research i made but the construction and references cited on his article; it unfortunately not adequate at present. Princek2019 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Princek2019, if you think the subject satisfies any criterion from WP:RELPEOPLE, which I do not believe they do, you might point it out, furthermore if you believe in the very least that they satisfy WP:GNG, you may provide us with any three reliable sources that substantiates this. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: i only made that suggestions because of the below refences i saw about the subject online.Celestina007

https://punchng.com/poju-oyemades-tweet-ignites-religious-debates/

https://punchng.com/covid-19-shutting-church-buildings-does-not-affect-true-faith-oyemade/

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/386899-5g-controversy-ashimolowo-oyemade-adeyemi-counter-oyakhilomes-claims.html

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/coza-any-man-of-god-who-cant-control-his-libido-shouldnt-go-near-pulpit-can/

https://businessday.ng/life/article/churches-that-dont-embrace-ict-will-lose-out-says-wale-oke/

https://m.guardian.ng/news/cautious-optimism-as-churches-resume-in-lagos/

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/02/tony-rapu-poju-oyemade-others-set-for-the-next-conference-2020/

https://www.tostvnetwork.com/no-one-really-representing-north-south-or-east-everyone-is-fighting-for-themselves-muhammad-sanusi/

https://dailypost.ng/2012/12/03/how-comedienne-princess-embarrassed-pastor-pojus-church-single/

• Comment: the few above independent reference i saw made me suggest, it's moved to draft so the author can work on it properly along with the contents.Princek2019 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Princek2019, please always sign properly & indent properly also because I know you know how to do these things perfectly well so please do not make other editors clean up after you. The first three are announcements, the fourth looks Okaish, the fifth to eight aren’t directly discussing him, hence no significant coverage thus aren’t the standard required by WP:GNG & the ninth is trivial, so in all only one source looks decent hence a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I don't really have much time at present to get more references but he has several online sources, i still strongly suggest it's been moved to draft. Below are the few i could get among the still numerous online news content unmentioned.

https://www.informationnigeria.com/2017/03/check-15-influential-pastors-nigeria-churches.html

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/prominent-pastors-silence-over-busola-dakolos-rape-saga-odd-alibaba/

https://punchng.com/the-gospel-of-style/Princek2019 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the above sources. The first, the second and the third source are merely a re-statement of his views. The fourth does the same with a bit more detail. The fifth mentions him in passing, so do the sixth, the seventh and the eight. The ninth, again, gives us something he said on twitter and tells us that he delivered a journal. I agree with Celestina007 all the way here. Now, regarding the three new sources: No1. Is better than most of what we have seen here with regards to detailed coverage. Still, independence and reliability in particular are doubtful. No2 is merely a mention in passing. No3. Is about his wife. We have now read dozens of pieces about the subject and my assessment is still the same: there are copious amount of coverage on him, almost none of which is all of reliable, independent and significant. Sorry to restate this, but WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are not met. @Princek2019: you have not given any arguments, apart from the coverage being numerous, why this should be moved to draft. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify move to draft is valid due to the amount of coverage he has received however you weigh it. It is likely in view of the amount of coverage that he will pass WP:GNG at some time and not passing WP:GNG is not a reason to refuse a move to draft, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, current GNF failure does not in principle prevent the article being moved to draft. There is, of course, no way to accurately predict whether the subject will become notable in the future. I think the abundance of sources could also be interpreted in the opposite way: dozens of low-quality sources have been published on him in the last couple of years and he already appears to be fairly prominent in Nigerian religious life. I don't think it's unfair to assume that dozens more articles of this nature will be written on him in the coming years. The article is rudimentary and there is no obvious indication he'll be notable at one point. So no reason to save this as a draft. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he's fairly prominent in Nigerian religious life then that is every reason to avoid deletion by drafting for improvement. Your opposition to drafting is an extreme position imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like not to be misconstrued. I won't lose any sleep over it should this article be moved to draft. The reason I'm not changing my !vote to draft is that I don't believe that, having studied the many sources available, the subject will soon be able to meet the guidelines. Whether he is prominent in Nigerian public life, as I acknowledge myself, does not matter as much. If this were simply a case of WP:TOOSOON, I would not object to draftifying. Seeing all this, I think there is a good basis in the guidelines for deletion, while you base your argument simply on the large number of sources out there. You are entitled to this view, of course, but I fail to see how my position is extreme. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Atlantic306.

I checked for more sources on this subject and there seem to be an abundance of sources, much more than what the editor who created this page used and pointed out. Some more time and due diligence should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deolkint (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — @Atlantic306, you have a decent argument right there. The article creator didn’t do justice to the subject of the article as like you rightfully said; abundance of sources do exist. I initially voted based on the sources currently in the article but I just concluded a deep web search & found multiple sources that if combined together may satisfy WP:BASIC. Although the subject as a religious person doesn’t satisfy any criterion from RELPEOPLE, he is leaning on #1 of RELPEOPLE but he definitely isn’t just there yet. I might change my !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 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.