Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also does not meet any WP:ACADEMIC criterion that I can verify with a reliable source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only tiny cites [1]. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. WP:GNG stipulated clearly that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (I.e not the person personal source), it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. With this[2] In my WP:NPOV, he has not failed WP:GNG. The research work conducted by the subject is most cited accross the globe according to journal Of food science (a reliable source) because of its significance. He has also passed WP:ACADEMICS criteria 1. He has received a Doctorate award,Ph.D which passed him for criteria 2. This [3]and[4] passed him for criteria 3. Lastly to save hour time and the energy to read too many words, this[5]passed him for criteria 8. And we all knows that a researcher don't have to win a Nobel prize before been notable. I suggest that we Keep this article and gives some time for improvement. Thanks (Wikicology (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Criterion 2 at WP:ACADEMIC is "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Why do you believe that receiving a Ph.D meets this criterion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Yes! Ph.D is a highly prestigeous academic Award/Honor/Degree often “awarded” on the basis of remarkable academic excellence in researches and the significant of the researches to the society or global world. If it is awarded within your country, it is national. If it is awarded outside your country it is international. Sometimes it is awarded as honorary based on the impact of the receiver in his society/country or to the entire world. Aliko Dangote is a receiver of such honorary award based on its impact in Nigeria and to the world. Note also that criteria 2 of WP:ACADEMICS didn't specify the exact classes of the award (I.e maybe a Nobel prize or other specific one). I urge us not to mis-interpret our guilding principle (The criterias and the guidlines). Let's call a Dog a Dog.(Wikicology (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF at this point in his career, with an h-index of only 5. A PhD is not a "a highly prestigious academic award," but the ordinary entry-level qualification to an academic career. The "criteria notes" in WP:PROF explains what the criteria mean. -- 101.117.141.12 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@101.117.141.12: am sorry to say this, if Ph.D is an ordinary entry-level qualification to academic career, what is Bachelor of Science(B.sc)(Wikicology (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF and no attempt made to provide independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Having a PhD is not enough for an article otherwise my father's brother's son (brother-in-law I think) would have one.--Launchballer 14:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Am totally lost has to why every wikipedian WP:POV are centered on P.hD. Why not address other areas of the article? Can you shed more light on what you mean by reliable source? Do we have other reliable source topic apart from the one in our guidlines here?(Wikicology (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete In it's current state fails WP:PROF. Need WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG since there is no sign of him receiving any significant coverage in reliable sources . All the citations on the article are NOT even from very reliable sources. Darreg (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: :@Darreg: here is not a place for nominating an article for speedy delection. Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette. I suggest you read WP:AFDEQ. And don't always based your contribution on existing arguements also read WP:NPOV (Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]