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. Consensus that there is no reliable independent sourcing to satisfy notability guidelines. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Adeyemi (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)

Non-notable "physician", "politician", and individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said she's a politician? Ahola .O (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Has some published papers in Gscholar, unsure what her h-factor is though... I can sort of access Scopus [1], seems rather low. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It wasn't mentioned or categorized that she's a politician or an author. She passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

Here are some reports about her on Businessday and Thisdaylive: Why I’m Mentoring a New Generation of Women – THISDAYLIVE, Lola Adeyemi, Founder and CEO at Mentoring Her - Businessday NG but i considered them to be interviews. For WP:BIO, she is a Nigerian cancer researcher that has presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and World Health Organization (WHO), has been recognized by Forbes, was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and a Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Nigeria. I hope this helps. Ahola .O (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real sourcing to support a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Publications from notable universities are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. This page has a reference from Johns Hopkins University which talked about her education and being a physician. Additionally, I recently added some references from Nairametrics, and Media Trust. Concerning reliable sources about the subject's notability, she was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and was recognized in a Forbes's list which are both published on thier websites and are in use in the page. This page is a stub, instead of trying to get rid of it, why not help in expanding it. I have made some changes to the page, and I hope they help. Ahola .O (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ahola .O I just tagged the whole article's biography section as unreferenced. Can you provide the source to the information or reveal where you get the information from. Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I only see a couple of reliable sources about her, as opposed to interviews and what she wrote. If I had additional evidence of notable awards or tenure, I'd be more firm in my stance. But I don't see a lot of junk journalism that I've seen with DJs and producers. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian Are you serious right now? Please maintain consistency in your judgment. What guideline exactly are you citing the subject passes? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plain old WP:SIGCOV. I'm not a strict deletionist. I really do go on a case-by-case basis. I see a big difference between this article and a lot of the other articles that we've seen lately at AfD. I'm saying "weak keep" because I see two reliable, in depth sources but the standard for significant coverage is three sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian Please help me provide the two sources you're talking about? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the last two: Johns Hopkins and the Forbes editorial content. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian Thank you for mentioning. Did you realise that Johns Hopkins Alumni Association cannot get the information without the subject being involved? She, as a matter of fact, will have to provide them with the details there, that is how it works; this thus fails WP:IRS. The Forbes has nothing usable, it is literally an empty page, and even if it has contents, it would still fail WP:INDEPENDENT because it is a self-published author page. So, I do not see how these two sources add a pinch of notability passage to the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources available in and outside the article do not prove that the subject is notable. Plus, the lead and Early life and education section have no sources, and none of the cited sources in the article support those details. I don’t want to assume anything shady is going on, so I’ll just assume good faith. Idoghor Melody (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I was focused on what's not there (the usual suspects of content farms: see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources), as opposed to what's already there, but I've been convinced to lean the other way. There's still a nub of notability, but not significant enough coverage. A soft delete is probably in order. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks like this doesn't quite pass notability, a working medical person, but not enough to be more notable than others in a similar position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This subject does not seem notable and lacks independent reliable news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2025 (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.