Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolaji Alonge

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. It may be "salvagable", but what matters is that hasn't actually been salvaged durings 3 weeks of AfD. We don't host self-promotion. Sandstein 19:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaji Alonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is advertising. No matter how notable his work may or may not be, the tone is that of a promotional brochure--to the extent that it might also be copyvio.

Since there is no evidence any of the exhibitions are significant, there's no basis for rewriting the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I agree with DGG, this is a Promotional article on a Non notable photographer that doesn’t meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The sourcing is an absolute mirage and if requested I can draw up a table and dissect each and every source used and show how two-third(if not all) fail to meet WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, thank you for reviewing the article. The artist is well known in Nigeria. Additional references in national press have been added and others removed. Further improvements will be made very shortly to ensure compliance. Sandra Vermuyten (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted for review of additional added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the article seems to be salvagable. Aside from the introduction, there is lots of information that can be rewritten to be encyclopedic. Also, there is a lot of news press about him.Roostery123 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:ADMASQ - this is Alonge's brochure, not an encyclopaedic article. WP:BLP referencing failure. Might he pass WP:BIO? From this it is extremely hard to tell. Removing al the unreferenced material is a consideration, but removing it leaves almost no article. Better to start again from the ground up 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 29 April 2022 (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.