Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nkiru Olumide-Ojo

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Nkiru Olumide-Ojo}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Nkiru Olumide-Ojo}})

Not a single relialbe independnet source to meet WN ANYBIO or GNG. Generally not notable businesswoman/ columnist. Removed some dead or not related links. Classic WP REFBOMB and WP MILL. Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I do not entirely agree that the links that have been removed are unrelated. The article's history shows quite a bit was removed before this was posted in AfD. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@DaffodilOcean The links were restored, and you can analyze them. I reviewed them again, and they appear to be primary, paid, interview-based, and unreliable sources (WP:MILL, WP:REFBOMB, etc.). I cannot find any reliable sources or a valid reason to justify the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Why were sources removed? Dead links could be rescued using the wayback machine. Also, sources that shows that her books were reviewed by independent outlets were removed before this nomination. I do not have an opinion on the notability of this topic at this time. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Reading Beans there was a classic REFBOMB with tons of sources about her book (I'm not saying all the sources were paid, but their similarity and flattering tone are suspicious) rather than about the person. To analyze the sources that may establish the person's notability, it's useful to remove excessive, unreliable, REFBOMBING sources. Anyway, the sources were returned back by other editors, and you can evaluate the topic's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. This AfD should be withdrawn so that the sources can be restored. Then resubmit for AfD if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The nominator has deliberately deleted several important references and text from the article prior to nomination which help to establish notability per WP:GNG, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nkiru%20Olumide-Ojo&diff=prev&oldid=1273631893 an entire section about the awards she has won]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nkiru%20Olumide-Ojo&diff=next&oldid=1273631893 a section about social development initiatives she has been involved with]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nkiru%20Olumide-Ojo&diff=prev&oldid=1273632175 a citation to an interview with her that includes six paragraphs of biographical information]; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nkiru%20Olumide-Ojo&diff=next&oldid=1273632175 citations of multiple book reviews and a feature article]. It is a waste of everyone's time to bring this article to AfD and force other editors to try to piece together what you've deleted. The only possible good faith explanation of this behavior is that the nominator does not fully understand deletion policy or notability criteria. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :[https://guardian.ng/guardian-woman/nkiru-olumide-ojo-including-men-in-gender-conversations-helps-greatly/] This interview, which contains only a few paragraphs about the person's biography, is not a reliable source, as it resembles a prewritten press release with no in-depth independent coverage. It cannot be considered reliable in any way Cinder painter (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Comment : There is sufficient information in that interview confirming notability. The biographical information is not a "passing mention" as per policy, but a detailed info about the subject before the initial interview. A "passing mention" is something like a one liner - which is not the case here. Interviews are indeed acceptable as sources provided they come from a reliable sources or news outlet. Unless you are claiming that the Guardian (Nigeria) is not a reliable source (please provide link to a community consensus if this is your claim), the ref meets our WP:RS policy, and the coverage sufficient enough to meet our notability guidelines. From my humble experience, the community tends to look down on removal of sources then nominating an article for deletion. That might have been a genuine mistake or oversight on your part, but I would have tagged the article using the appropriate template(s) and initiate discussion on the talkpage. Alternatively, I would not have deleted sources before nominating it for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

* HARD KEEP: more than enough secondary sourcing to confirm WP:GNG. I've reverted the blanking done by Cinder painter on the article and gave him a level 3 warning for the severe blanking. This is very bad behaviour. Cielquiparle's assessment of the situation is correct. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 01:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• :please indicate best secondary sources here. I would appreciate it really much Cinder painter (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Cielquiparle. Blanking or deleting sources then nominating an article for deletion is not good practice.Tamsier (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Tamsier Those were not reliable sources that helped establish the subject's notability, but rather a REFBOMB, MILL, and paid or primary (self-published) sources. Cinder painter (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I removed paid, interviews, PR sources, and dead ones. I also marked unreliable and primary sources. Awards are not notable, and bringing them back is very suspicious. The "Keep" votes don't address the subject's questionable notability, so I ask for a review of the available sources and clarification on which GNG criteria the person meets. Cinder painter (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I was also amazed by the number of references and was trying to persuade myself that the person is notable, but when I analyzed all the sources, I realized that they lack depth, independence, and reliability, failing to provide sustained coverage that would justify inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:GNG). Most of the references cited are local Nigerian publications such as Punch, Business Day, Vanguard, and Guardian Nigeria, which frequently publish routine coverage, interviews, and promotional articles rather than critical, biographical journalism. Most of the sources appear to be WIKIPEDIA:CHURNALISM - press releases, industry websites, or affiliated organizations (Marketing Edge, NiPRO, Advertisers Association of Nigeria), all of which fail Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria. While she has published one book, The Pressure Cooker, it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for authors (WP:NAUTHOR), as there is no evidence of bestseller status, major literary awards, or academic significance. The article reads like a resume or promotional biography, listing awards, job positions, and speaking engagements rather than demonstrating why she is notable on a broader scale. Given the lack of substantial third-party sources, the over-reliance on weak or non-independent references, and the overall promotional nature and poor notability of the person, the page should be deleted. 98.10.26.73 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as content mainly relies on self-published or promotional material without in-depth third-party analysis. --Xrimonciam (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I've changed my mind after further reflection and reading other's comments. It appears the subject lacks valid secondary sourcing to pass WP:GNG. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I am fixing the article now so it's a work in progress. Was it a refbomb mess? Yes. Did it originally read like a resume? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not fixable or that the subject is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search even uncovers articles in reliable sources the subject probably wouldn't want to have cited in her biography. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:HEY. The article, Nkiru Olumide-Ojo, has been much improved; it was a mess to begin with, with too much detail about her professional background and awards, such that it read overly promotional like a resume. There are many bylined reviews of Nkiru Olumide-Ojo's book, The Pressure Cooker: Lessons From a Woman at Work, a self-help book which also describes what life is like for a working Nigerian woman, which are now quoted and cited in her biography. Even if we discount [https://guardian.ng/art/olumide-ojos-pressure-cooker-motivates-women-for-ambition/ the review by Adebola Rayo-Falade in The Guardian Nigerian News] for notability purposes (due to concerns about that particular publication), as well as all the newspaper articles about her book promotion tour (as we would with authors in other countries), there are enough other reviews including [https://ynaija.com/review-pressure-cooker-nkiru-olumide-ojo-confidence-boost-trying-times/ a review by Toyin Agunbiade] in YNaija which is very much a personal reaction to what the book says about subtle sexism, mentors and mentees, and the need to ask for support; and [https://dailytrust.com/nkiru-s-guide-for-the-ambitious-woman-in-the-pressure-cooker/ the review by Hafsah Abubakar Matazu] in Daily Trust which is also a personal reaction to the book, bringing up the author's willingness to discuss her failures and insecurities. (Yes, the book hasn't won literary awards or been reviewed in academic journals, but we wouldn't expect that for a book of this genre in this market.) Once again discounting the numerous professional awards which Nkiru Olumide-Ojo has won in Nigeria for notability purposes, we can still find examples of recognition she has received outside of Africa – particularly her [https://www.proquest.com/docview/3160035328/635D862B07E94719PQ/69 selection for the global jury at the 2024 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity] (as well as [https://archive.advertisingweek.com/events/eu/2017/speakers/?list=O her selection as a speaker at Advertising Week Europe in London in 2017]; these suggest that there is also international / cross-regional recognition of her notability within her field. It is absolutely the case that Nigerian sources need to be used with extreme care, but we have now done so, and the article now portrays an African career woman educated in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, who has climbed the corporate ranks at companies such as Standard Bank Group in South Africa, and Stanbic IBTC and Forte Oil PLC in Nigeria, who also wrote a weekly newspaper column in BusinessDay for about seven years which she turned into a book, has started The Lighthouse Women's Network to help equip women of all ages for the workforce, and has received recognition from global and European organisations in addition to professional associations within her own country. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete :Very interesting argument. But, the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:HEY, and should therefore be deleted. While quite suspicious efforts have been made to save the article, the subject does not have significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and the current evidence presented does not establish enduring notability.
• :1. Insufficient Notability as an author (fails WP:AUTHOR)
• :* The primary argument for keeping the article are based on the reviews of The Pressure Cooker: Lessons From a Woman at Work. However, most of the cited reviews are personal reactions rather than critical analysis from established literary sources. Also, this book is not itself on the Wikipedia, and won't likely pass GNG for books. Also, the WP AUTHOR requires the person to be known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;
• :* The book has not received major literary awards, has not been the subject of academic review, and has not been covered by highly authoritative publications outside the Nigerian media space.
• :* The sources referenced (e.g., YNaija, Daily Trust) are not widely recognized for literary criticism, and the Guardian Nigeria's credibility for notability purposes has been questioned.
• :* The book's media coverage appears tied to promotional efforts, which do not establish the author’s independent notability.
• :2. promotional nature of the subject’s career coverage
• :* The article relies heavily on awards and recognitions received by Nkiru Olumide-Ojo within Nigeria. However, professional industry awards do not inherently confer notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines.
• :* The mention of her corporate career and involvement with organizations like Standard Bank and Stanbic IBTC does not in itself justify inclusion, as holding a high-ranking position in a company does not establish biographical notability unless there is extensive, independent coverage about her specific impact.
• :* The Lighthouse Women's Network lacks significant independent coverage that demonstrates its wide influence.
• :3. International recognition argument is weak
• :* The claim that she received “international or cross-regional recognition” is overstated.
• :* Being selected as a jury member for the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity is a one-time event, which does not equate to sustained independent notability. Similarly, her participation as a speaker at Advertising Week Europe in 2017 does not improve her possible notability at all.
• :* There is no significant coverage in major international media publications like Forbes, The Economist, Financial Times, or Reuters, which would help substantiate cross-regional notability.
• :4. Reliance on unreliable and weak sources
• :* The Nigerian media landscape has known issues with reliability, already acknowledged in the "Keep" argument.
• :* The sources used primarily discuss her book or quote her directly, rather than offering independent, in-depth biographical analysis.
• :5. Marketing Specialist, not a notable public figure
• :* Nkiru Olumide-Ojo is primarily a marketing specialist, a field where notability is not so easy to gain (at least some international rankings, awards could help, but they don't exist)
• :* The article presents her corporate career, a marketing leadership position, even at big companies, does not establish notability under WP:BASIC.
• :Also, the Keep voter seems to be personally interested in keeping the page, as they wrote a non-neutral argument:
• :Vague claims:
• :* The phrase “these suggest that there is also international / cross-regional recognition of her notability within her field” is vague and does not specify concrete, independent sources that confirm this recognition.
• :* The statement “has climbed the corporate ranks at companies such as Standard Bank Group in South Africa, and Stanbic IBTC and Forte Oil PLC in Nigeria” simply lists her job history, which is not a valid basis for Wikipedia notability.
• :* Promotional Tone and Subjective Framing The phrase “the article now portrays an African career woman educated in Nigeria and the United Kingdom” is not an objective criteria for notability but rather a framing technique.
• :* Similarly, “who also wrote a weekly newspaper column in BusinessDay for about seven years which she turned into a book” attempts to overestimate the importance of a routine journalistic activity.
• :* Potential Conflict of Interest The detailed emphasis on every aspect of her career and initiatives suggest the possibility that the person trying to save the page is biased or has a personal connection to the subject. 2601:14B:4980:F20:CCCA:F95F:C0CF:36CA (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Sure, but you have also written a non-neutral argument at AfD; the important thing is that the article itself has been revised to be neutral in tone. And no, I have no personal connection. I would have voted to delete if the article was still in the promotional state it was in previously; the main reason I initially voted to speedy keep instead was because the nominator kept deleting large sections of the article and sources, making it difficult to review. Anyway the article is in better shape now and if WP:CLEANUP was the goal, then job done. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete: per nom, none of the sources meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Many of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Classic WP:MILL.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Looks at the first block and second of references. No real indication of significance. Many of the references are primary and curiously there is a couple of proquest references that are clearly press-release style annoucements that wrapped, real newspaper stories. The book has several reviews, none are them are particular decent. They seem to be very much social media type sites, outside the mainstream social media sites. They are not valid. I thought the book may be notable but couldn't any valid reviews in the usual places, i.e. recognised journals. It drops out what should be secondary sources immediately in the first block to an a interview into other stuff unrelated to the bio aspect. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. The book is non-notable as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• :What "mainstream social media sites"? What are the "usual places, i.e. recognised journals" where one would expect to see reviews of this Nigerian book? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• There is a further review, [https://thelagosreview.ng/nkiru-olumide-ojos-the-pressure-cooker-and-its-feminist-agenda-toni-kan/ "Nkiru Olumide-Ojo’s “The Pressure Cooker” and its feminist Agenda"], which was published in The Lagos Review by writer Toni Khan, which draws comparisons with Jean-Paul Sartre, which is by far the most sophisticated analysis of the book (for those who insisted on seeing more intellectual gravitas in reviews for a Nigerian self-help book that was not intended to be read outside Nigeria). However the review also contains a joke about the author bullying the male writer into writing a review of a book targeting females, which undermines the "independence" of the review (though one could argue that this happens behind the scenes all the time within the book industry). For this reason and in acknowledgement of the overly promotional tone of the original article, which Wikipedia is never kind to, I am throwing in the towel and saying go ahead and delete. I would just point everyone to WP:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources, which actually lists many of the sources cited in this article under the "reliable" category (though a couple are "borderline"). And to the future editor who decides to recreate this article once there is more in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, please start with the latest version of this article in draftspace if possible rather than recreating an article based on her CV (as I did make an effort to make it more neutral), and do have a read of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PROMOTION. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Can this be draftified? There has been a lot of work done to the article and I’m willing to take a proper look at this article at a later time. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sure. OK with me too !draftify per the final part of my argument above. It will automatically get deleted in 6 months if no one does any additional work on it. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, although Draftify to work more on this would be reasonable. It's not reasonable to delete references and then nominate for deletion. Lessons learned. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.