Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akinwale Arobieke

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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akinwale Arobieke

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

This is one of those articles where it's quite clear that even if it doesn't violate the letter of the BLP policy, it most certainly violates the spirit.

What we've got here is an article about a guy who got press coverage for being amusingly creepy, and seems to have a Wikipedia article for the same reason. That's neither acceptable nor satisfactory, and unless someone can demonstrate that this is more than just the output from local newspapers iterating on "man bites dog", it should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in reliable sources, regardless of the reasons for it. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable in reliable sources" is...kind of tautological. If you mean "covered by reliable sources", absolutely, but the existence of the BLP policy means that the reasons for that coverage absolutely matter. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strange topic and probably not the most useful article, but the subject does have fairly extensive independent coverage by multiple sources (BBC, etc.). Coverage extends over a period of years, so not sure if BLP1E would apply either. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - aside from the "local news" sources, there are three BBC footnotes spanning 4 years for the "muscle touch ban" (an oddly unique court order of historical precedent) and the google trends results for "purple aki" show a small but consistent (and slightly growing) result[1]. Witty lama 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources. independent coverage. BLP1E does not apply.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (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.