Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola-dele Kuku

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ola-dele Kuku

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

encountered at new page patrol. Notability unclear Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if unclear why nominate, you are aware of wp:before? AfD is not a process for article improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't familiar with him, but he does make some interesting objects.[1][2]. This was posted only last night and could certainly have been given a bit more time before being dragged to AfD. --Hegvald (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of the article is a is a notable Nigerian artiste. I also found this, and this. Editors need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. We usually do not measure notability per sources provided in an article and editors are expected to check for more reliable sources before considering a deletion as option. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is in question and there is a possibility that this was created for promotional purposes. -O.R.^Comms 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this source is indepth. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is now the second time I've seen editors suggest "promotional" for delete I don't like it. (the first was calling a NYTimes book review promotional). Duckduckstop (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD Hmlarson (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps if this can also be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sourcing (provided by Wikicology) is available to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 12 February 2016 (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.