Deletion of Isaiah Oke

Comment: No sources found that show subject meets  or . And, as nominator noted, much of the article is not about the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: The internet not existing when someone would have written about him is pretty irrelevant, as is evidenced by the thousands of articles we have on people who died hundreds of years ago. However, I can't find any reliable sources that support a single item in this article ''about him''. Sure, plenty on the Yoruba religion but that's not the subject. I found some mentions in books, however they are largely as a result of the article on Wikipedia, even citing Wikipedia. Short of https://books.google.com/books?id=_aIIUkIquk0C&q=%22isaiah+oke%22&dq=%22isaiah+oke%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC8avzwpLTAhWJ6SYKHR_rCEIQ6AEIGjAA this, which is self-written, there is no coverage of this person significant enough to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: absolutely no indication that the subject meets , being a self proclaimed sorcerer is of no significance at all, as well as really no signs of satisfying ; the only sources in the article that actually refer to the subject are a WP mirror and the guy's autobiography, and some searching hasn't turned up anything reliable.  Plus obviously the  issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPERSON||WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: although the descriptions of cultism read as well as any Dennis Wheatley) as failing , and much of the actually more important . Probably the most fundamental tenet of that policy ('{{green|All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}') is steamrollered- with no prejudice, however, to the argument made regarding . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSON||WP:BLP||WP:BIAS)

Comment: The article was poorly developed by its creator I must say, but as per  an article need not pass every guideline to merit inclusion into the Encylopedia.  Now may we all keep in mind that the article is about a Nigerian, third world countries do not have as much resources and exposure, (as per research); the Average Nigerian lives on $1 talk less of access to information materials, the Internet & basic sources. America, Asia, Europe do not have this issue,  as so, if it were an article on an American, Asian, or a European I would probably support the nominator. This article up for deletion pertains to an individual '''born in 1940''', '''in 1940, the Country Nigeria had not even been given their independence''', so we all could imagine how low technology was, regardless, articles were still  written about this individual somehow, that obviously portrays a form of notability, a major problem is failure to do proper research before nominating an article for deletion, most editors often make the mistake of ascribing notability just by number of Google hits found and if not satisfied with results, nominates the article. That is why Wikipedia has a policy as thus;  it enables an editor to sit down and use their discretion before taking an action. Some People born in Nigeria, even at the year 2001, do not have sufficient coverage or articles written about them let alone somehow born 20 years prior the Nigerians received their Independence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COMMONSENSE)