Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ignoring the WP:BLUDGEONing and assumptions of bad faith, I find the source assessments of those arguing for deletion far more fact- and P&G-based, and less WP:TENDENTIOUS, than of those arguing for retention. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate (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)

Was raised at RSN slightly over 2 months ago, not much has changed since the article was previously deleted as Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed (AfD), which isn't too surprising considering it was only 4 months ago. Sources are promotional and of questionable independence, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies. Might ping previous participants later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Medicine, and Nigeria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: *Clear throat* This person is a Fellow of West African College of Surgeons. I guess we should re-read NACADEMIC together. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reading Beans Thanks for pointing that out, It’s funny how I saw this article here, I even made a search on google and I found out the old deleted revision was garbage but this fresh article seams better, maybe @Alpha3031 might by Judging based on previous AFD discussion, I don’t know who was the creator by the way, I’ll only create articles that meets notability, atleast few points. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure Reading Beans. I don't really think Chippla360 needed to ping me for this, but I suppose I should clarify that I did read both the article and the past discussions, where thes is mentioned but not fully discussed, in addition to doing a search for sources. And possibly something about NPROF. Ah, I'm sure I'll think of it later, but it might include something about at least three thousand fellows between 1983 and 2012.[1] Might also have the word highly in there somewhere. Something to get to after the reread then? I'm sure Chippla and Dxneo have arguments in favour of the subject's notability, but we won't really know for sure until the sources are discussed here, no?
    It's not like this is a forgone conclusion, Vanderwaalforces and Drmies both mentioned the fellowship in the past discussion, so they might be convinced given the evidence of it existing, or maybe not (who knows). I'll also ping the rest,  Versace1608 , Bearian, Ibjaja055, and Gheus and ActivelyDisinterested from the RSN discussion, to see if they have any insights. There's also the American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine but I'm not sure they're even a reputable training company, much less their academic reputation, and I couldn't find much on them so I might leave it to someone more familiar with American medical associations to comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last discussion you’re talking about, VWF said the claims were hoax and to be honest, I only assumed good faith and didn’t verify the honest. I’ll do
    some searches and I’ll be right back. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This list of fellows has his name on the Original Fellow List #5000. I don’t think there’s a debate here about the notability (there could be possible UPE, but that’s not a deletion criteria). This is my 2€ (I don't do cents), and I’ll be watching the discussion to see the trajectory it takes. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not great at saying things by implication, so since we seem to be past that I will just say that I didn't have doubts they're a fellow, but I looked things up and they seem to have awarded fellows in two ways since 1983, one of which being considerably more selective than the other, and I don't see any way to tell one type of fellow from the other. I suppose we might still be able to consider it highly selective, but I don't think it's a done deal so I don't want to preempt any discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    also, it seems like I accidentally pinged everyone again when adjusting the formatting, so I apologise for that.Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I don’t know why this article was brought to AFD but potential editors have viewed this page serval times but didn’t think otherwise, before i decided to create this page, I found reliable sources, why some articles found on google seams to be published in a Fan point of view, I have used only reliable sources and there is no prove of the references used in this article been promotional, article passed through AFC, there are editorial bylines and subject clearly passes WP:GNG, meets WP: NACADEMIC.
    I saw the Old AfD Discussion, deletion log Also Came across this on google (It was nothing to write home about) Maybe it’s the issues previous participants where pointing out on the AFD discussion, so I had to do my research. Also found WP:SIGCOV [1] [2] Aside other facts about this subject, It’s verifiable also through serval source that he is a fellow of West African College of Surgeons. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chippla360 I found the old deletion logs and it was nothing to write home about. How did you find the content of the deleted article and what makes you think Alpha3031 may be judging from the “deleted” content and not the content of this one? Judging from my participation of the previous AfD and if I remember the content of the article correctly, this your version is nothing much different from the deleted version. There are so many things that seem off with this recreation in its entirety, but I’d have to take my time and give a proper look later. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO, the nomination rationale shows that the nominator was judging based on previous deleted content. But let’s focus on the actual issue here which is to know if Aranmolate satisfies NPROF#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vanderwaalforces @Alpha3031, have a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed, I don’t have much to say about the previous existence of this article, But I did my search for notable, tried to understand the flaws before I decided to create this article, sources I found was what lead me on to the "page title" I used which was more appropriate. Then I still made some research on google and I came across [3] after I created and submitted the draft to AFC, So I’m thinking If these might be the old content some AFD participants actually talked about on the old deletion log, In General I won’t choose to create an article if the subject doesn’t meet the requirements. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 07:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly. I have no doubt that you created the article because you believed him to be notable, and I have no issue with that. Even AFC/NPP reviews only require us to check that people are likely to survive a deletion discussion, not certain to to survive a deletion discussion, so please don't take this as me calling into question anybody's judgement. It's just that I think it's reasonable to have the discussion, when the sources are subject to caveats surrounding independence and reliability, and the assessment is more difficult as a result. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is probably my last comment here, @Alpha3031 your nomination is obviously based on passed events seeing the links you dropped, @Reading Beans can agree to that, I have to politely ask, you stated that the sources are promotional, I want to see the prove, You cant just say all the sources used aren’t good enough to prove notability because you didn’t state that the subject failed any notability criteria on your nomination comment, I’ve Assume good faith lastly, check the source and points I dropped on my keep vote, also see my comments here, Thank you. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think "you've obviously based your nomination on past events" really falls under the letter or spirit of assuming good faith, when I did state that I performed my own search for sources. I believe the link provided some relevant context, I don't particularly appreciate the accusation I've done no additional work because of it, but just to avoid all doubt, I have in fact read the sources currently cited in the article, and those that came up in my own search.
          This wasn't really a topic I had in mind in the first place when I opened my nomination so I do appreciate your stated willingness to drop it. As I've said, and I'm sorry if this discussion is distressing to you, I've brought it here because there was concerns raised about the sources, and I didn't particularly disagree with them, so I thought a discussion on the issue was reasonable. I really don't understand why this has turned into me making a judgement based on the previously deleted content. I do not have viewdeleted. I cannot see deleted content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It's certainly more balanced and not the hagiography that we see sometimes out of the Nigerian pay-for-play media. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't even remember this one, but I was mentioned here. At a glance, I would say the article is fairly referenced in RS. The legal issues, accolades, work in surgery (very reliable source), plus he's been making headlines since 2020. Promo does not apply here. dxneo (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Do we consider Fellow of the American College of Surgeons or Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons notable by default? No. Fellowship of West African College of Surgeons is a professional achievement but not enough to feature on an encyclopedia. Basically everything else is written by SEO guest posters on supposedly reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. 102.218.200.22 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, are you assuming good faith? Check the points on WP:GNG, You said this sources are "reliable" yeah, so what do you mean by SEO guest posters, did you review the existing sources? All of the articles has a Journalist byline or the publisher’s byline having significant coverage, which clearly meets GNG. Been a Fellowship of West African College of Surgeons is just one thing, subject has worked in government health centers as a Doctor, also a medical director and CEO of a health center which has been active and impacted for over 10 years [4]. Also a clean up and improvement has been made on this article by an admin since it’s AFD nomination, I suggest you review Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before you come to give your opinion without clear facts. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we refocus on the sources, please? Do we have WP:GNG here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Requested by @asilvering
    Here are some source that meets WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV having a journalism byline and reliable per WikiProject Nigerian sources
    References
    [2]
    [3]
    [4] Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what posting the first three sources in the article and saying they have bylines is supposed to imply. Yes, there's a list with the publications on it, but that list doesn't really have any more consensus than WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA does (arguably less). Even putting aside the WP:COISOURCE/WP:SPIP concerns, which I feel like you're not actually engaging with (I'm sorry if I've been at all unclear, but that is in fact the main concern and the reason I've brought this up for discussion), reading the Abisola article, for example, I don't think there is a single sentence that can be identified as having analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, as per WP:SECONDARY. And the COISOURCE issue is kinda hard to ignore, with the context of the other articles under Abisola's name there. You can't seriously say that any of these articles: [5] [6] [7] have any prima facie appearance of journalistic objectivity, surely? I really don't see what your response to the IP editor about assuming good faith could possibly mean. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    1. Fails WP:GNG
      All cited coverage consists of routine “meet the professional” write-ups (Independent Newspaper Nigeria, The Nation, Guardian Nigeria News) that lack any critical analysis, evaluation or synthesis of the subject’s work, mere announcements rather than true secondary sources. No evidence of feature-length profiles, investigative pieces or scholarly discussion that would satisfy WP:SECONDARY.
    2. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF#2 (“Highly Selective” Professional Recognition)
      Fellowship of the West African College of Surgeons, while honorable, has enrolled over three thousand fellows between 1983 and 2012 (Omigbodun 2012). Such volume places it below the “highly selective” threshold required for automatic notability under NPROF. No indication that Dr. Aranmolate has received any rare, competitive awards or distinctions beyond standard fellowship.
    3. Promotional tone and possible WP:COI
      The prose reads like marketing copy (e.g. “global excellence,” “healthcare excellence”) rather than neutral encyclopedic prose. Multiple sources may derive from press releases or SEO-driven content farms, raising WP:COI concerns.
    4. Previous deletion and lack of new, independent evidence
      A near-identical article was deleted only four months ago. No genuinely new, reliable, independent sources have emerged since to alter the consensus. Re-creation of an article recently deemed non-notable suggests this revival is premature.
    5. Absence of demonstrated impact or wider recognition
      No record of major peer-reviewed publications, leadership in landmark studies, national awards, or significant influence beyond routine clinical practice. No coverage in major international medical journals or mainstream global media.
  • Given the absence of in-depth independent coverage, the non-selective nature of the fellowship, the promotional tone of existing sources, and the prior deletion, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines WP:GNG or the professional notability criteria WP:NPROF. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 23:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:GNG per having publications and headlines since 2019 till date, Promo doesn’t apply based on the fact there are multiple secondary sources.
    Secondly since the nomination, I see experienced editors making some improvements to the article, there is no valid reason for a delete, meets WP:NPROF#3 and point 1.
    The subject clearly meets WP:BASIC which qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Allblessed (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I should say, this is a;
    "Nigerian surgeon, medical professional and a burn consultant. He is the medical director and CEO of Grandville Medical and Laser Center, and a fellow of the West African College of Surgeons."
    Which is subject to WP:SIGCOV, from the nomination, the nominator didn’t say subject fails GNG, NPROF, or whatsoever. This was the basis of his nomination "Was raised at RSN slightly over 2 months ago, not much has changed since the article was previously deleted as Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed (AfD), which isn't too surprising considering it was only 4 months ago. Sources are promotional and of questionable independence, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies. Might ping previous participants later."So for me i think the nomination doesn’t apply, because how does it point out that the subject fails any criteria for notability. I have to give my honest opinions.
    Some broad-line RS found on the web not used on the Article, showing impact [8] [9] [10]. Allblessed (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this referred to the nomination statement specifically, at the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, the words questionable independence, the reference to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and the linked RSN discussion are all made in reference to the RS/IS criteria of GNG. The repeated accusations of me not doing what I'm supposed to are really starting to feel like personal attacks here, and seem a little misplaced given the assertions that the subject clearly passes the four criteria do not engage one bit with RS, IS or SECONDARY, and only engagement with the SIGCOV part of GNG is a vague wave towards "lots of sources" without any evaluation of depth of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You made mention of not much has changed since the article was deleted, But I see new secondary sources even if most source aren’t cited here, so I’m a bit confused because this looks like a fresh start. Allblessed (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am much more happy to clarify that, Allblessed. The article was deleted 8 February 2025. By not much has changed, I am referring to sources published between February and the present day. The reason I note this is because it is reasonable (and therefore I do so unless there is evidence otherwise) to assume the participants in the previous discussion did at least a cursory search for sources on their end, but that they would not have been able to base their assessment on sources published after their discussion. I have not referred to the reference list of the previous article, because as I've mentioned previously in this discussion, I do not have viewdeleted and I find it easier to just do a search for sources myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my last comment, I added some RS which shows impact, also in the reference I can see here, most source are from March to date. Allblessed (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't "showing impact" Allblessed, the 4 criteria are independence (Wikipedia:Independent sources) and reliability (Wikipedia:Reliable sources), which is called into question when the sources show signs of WP:SPIP (which NEWSORGNIGERIA and the RSN discussion are useful context for); WP:SECONDARY, which requires analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (the facts themselves are primary); and finally, WP:SIGCOV, which again isn't "significant as in impactful", but "significant as in directly and in-detail". You'd really need to actually say why, even if you think it's obvious it meets all four, because from where I'm sitting the three articles you've chosen so far are mostly quotes and other non-independent content, similar to the coverage pre-Februrary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t just say all the references and publications this subject has over the years it’s secondary or isn’t reliable, that’s not a good one to say because it’s obvious it is per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources, I suggest a clean up and not quoting that all isn’t valid, that’s all I can say to you because I’ve seen how you respond to every keep votes only, it seams you really want this article deleted and not seeking possible solutions to improve it, I believe the closure of this discussion will agree with me on this. Allblessed (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll love to see the promotional content on the source listed on the article and lack of independence, I’ve reviewed the sources I didn’t find quotes [11], aside this I’m off. Allblessed (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources did not meed notability, mostly coming from unreliable websites. 03:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs)
    @Historyexpert2 are you sure you reviewed wikipedia:Notability? Did you also review the reliability of the source (Website) per WikiProject Nigerian sources. All are reliable source, article is finely sourced and has been cleaned up also. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Omigbodun, Ao (July 2012). "The membership certification of the west african college of surgeons and its relevance to the needs of the west african sub-region". Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2 (3): 83–87. ISSN 2276-6944.
  2. ^ Abisola, Shojobi (1 April 2025). "Meet Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate, Nigerian Plastic Surgeon". Independent Newspaper Nigeria. Archived from the original on 13 April 2025. Retrieved 3 April 2025.
  3. ^ Adekunle, James (3 August 2022). "Dr. Rasheed Aranmolate's career journey from Lagos to global excellence". The Guardian Nigeria News. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
  4. ^ Abiodun, Alao (31 March 2025). "Rasheed Aranmolate: Standing for healthcare excellence in Nigeria". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 3 April 2025.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The sources cited by those seeking to keep this article are written in a promotional tone. Chippla earlier cited the first three sources in the article as evidence that he meets the GNG. Here are some quotes from each:
  1. [12] "Nigeria’s medical landscape shines brighter with the contributions of Dr. Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate" "Born on June 16, 1977, in the bustling city of Lagos, Rasheed hails from the historic town of Ijebu-Ode in Ogun State. His roots run deep in a land known for resilience and pride, qualities that have defined his stellar career. From his early days at Ondo State Government College, Usi Ekiti, to his transformative years at the prestigious College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Dr. Aranmolate’s pursuit of knowledge was relentless. His passion for healing led him to specialize in Burns and Plastic Surgery, He also completed a Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Training in Johns Hopkins University, United States." – seriously? even the town he was born in must be described as "historic"? It really feels like someone ran his CV through an LLM with the instructions to puff it up in every way imaginable.
  2. [13] Mostly a CV, but contains this as well: "Currently, Dr. Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate is a practicing surgeon and medical consultant with over 15 Years of experience, having a drive to support the medical community"
  3. [14] is also just a prose version of his CV. I don't see why they included this, though: "In an era where vitality is the new currency, health takes centre stage as the ultimate wealth. it’s about thriving, health care lights the way to a stronger, brighter tomorrow."
In summary, I don't think any of this coverage is truly INDEPENDENT of the subject. There is certainly no secondary coverage – they're just reading straight out of his CV. The remaining sources are just some quotes from him (not independent) [15], more of the same promotional CV do-over ("Grandville Medical and Laser stands as a beacon of innovation and excellence in Nigeria’s healthcare sector, driven by the visionary leadership of Dr. Ayobami Rasheed Aranmolate. Renowned for its advanced technologies and holistic approach, the center is revolutionizing plastic and aesthetic surgery.") [16], and the information that he was suspended from medical practice for, among other things, promoting himself on TV ("The fourth count was that Dr. Ayobami, registered medical practitioner, in wanton disregard for the rules of the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria 2008 Edition, engaged in self advertisement in a television program known as “Dr Laser” and thereby, conducted himself infamously...") [17]. I of course do not consider research papers published by the guy himself to be independent coverage, and I don't think the fellowship raised above is sufficient to meet NACADEMIC – it seems to be more of a professional certification program than an honor or award. [18] Toadspike [Talk] 08:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I’m unsure of articles reading like a CV there, GNG counts on multiple independent source (sources can be combined to attain GNG) Some writers may not articulate there words very well, doesn’t mean there are no other source that meets GNG, there is no proof that the information are gotten from the subject’s CV. None of us has seen the subjects Cv. Since 2018 this surgeon has been subject to news headlines, most of the articles and content that seams promotional has been removed, there are serval sources, the controversies isn’t a short coming because in my opinion this subject is notable, anyone can express there point of view, doesn’t change the fact that the sources here are reliable. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are bludgeoning this discussion. Please refrain from replying to and pinging every delete !voter (bar one) without making new arguments. I do not need to see the subject's CV to see that a plain listing of his educational and career history with no critical analysis is not secondary coverage. Interviews with and quotes from the subject are not independent coverage either. The source you have just linked is both an interview and has the same issues with promotional tone as the others: "In a bold move to address Nigeria’s healthcare accessibility challenges, Grandville Medical & Laser, founded by Dr. Aranmolate Ayobami, is championing telemedicine as a solution to the nation’s medical care crisis." I completely disagree with the remaining points you've made, but since I already explained my reasoning once I will not repeat myself. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Significant coverage and off course a reliable source independent of the subject Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t get me wrong, don’t see much issues on the Wikipedia page the way you made it seams, The Wikipedia article of this subject is written in a Neutral point of view, WP:NPOV so many users have improved it over time, so it’s nobody faults if some journalist writes content on some many, doesn’t deny the subject of notability per the points I and other editors whom commented and voted on this discussion has made. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having checked out the four sources that could contribute to notability via WP:SIGCOV (that is, the first four in the article), I am suspicious that The Nation and The Independent came out with rather similar gushing coverage only a day apart. I therefore discount those with a big question mark over brown envelope journalism. Those are the only ones that were published since the last AfD, I think, and, for me, there is not enough in the rest to substantiate a BLP. I should say that I am trying to balance both WP:RSNG and WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, but am more swayed by the latter's Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:01, 4 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rasheed_Ayobami_Aranmolate&oldid=1298753427"