Deletion of Olakunbi Olasope

Comment: We don't have enough evidence of highly cited works or well-reviewed books for  or , and beyond the lone book review of an edited volume we don't currently have any reliable sources that go into nontrivial detail about the subject. In particular the two copies of the "classics is not dead" source both quote her rather than being sources about her, the "launching the Classical Association" source mentions briefly someone with a different name (Kunbi Olasope) without clear evidence that it is the same person and without enough detail to be usable as a source, and the eTV source only includes her name on a list of panelists. So all we actually have to go on is the word of several commenters here that she plays a significant role in Nigerian academia, and her position as a professor in a major Nigerian university. I don't think either one is enough. Certainly being a professor alone, without other evidence, would not be enough in other countries and I don't see why Nigeria should be different in that respect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I don't see what more can be added to the discussion here. Several of us have repeatedly demonstrated that the subject meets  which is sufficient on its own to keep the page. The low Google Scholar citation count is a) not relevant given that she meets one notability criterion already and b) as Furius points out, not reliable as a measure of her disciplinary impact since many African publications, and frankly many publications in Classics from anywhere in the world, will not be available online. Other objections to the relevance of media sources, etc, have been answered above as demonstrating public interest in her work
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)|academic notability states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable....5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." As the latter is the case in Nigeria, this is not a 'routine professorial rank' (as for instance in the USA where the title of 'professor' is used for a variety of levels of academic positions) but the highest possible position that can be held in the subject's university, and therefore fulfills 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Subject completely misses . She has ''not'' an "named chair", but holds an ordinary full professorship, which is not enough to satisfy any of the criteria of ACADEMIC. Citations do not show notability either (which is not the same as saying that they show the subject is not notable). The much touted mentions in the press are in passing and not about this person, hence she also misses  and . Unless one of the "keep" !voters can show at least two |reliable sources that discuss the subject ''in depth'', this article will be deleted. As for the appeal to BIAS above, there would be abias if we would apply more stringent criteria to this bio because the subject is African/Nigerian or a woman. That is not the case, we apply exactly the same criteria for notability and |verifiability here that we would apply to anybody else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: I second the above comment. Lack of publications in journals/with publishers deemed 'major' by people in the Global North does not necessarily mean that a Nigerian academic's publications are insignificant (ditto lack of citations showing up on Google Scholar in a country and field in which relatively few publications are available online); in this case the subject is clearly notable within Nigeria due to both her position and media interest. The talk page of a single article is also not the place to hold a wider discussion of whether rof is fit for purpose or not; if the article fulfils the requirements as currently written - which it arguably does, since 'Professor' in this academic's department, which does not have named chairs, is the highest possible academic position and held by relatively few people - it should be kept, and any discussion about whether rof needs rewriting be taken to a more suitable location where a wider discussion amongst a larger number of editors is possible
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)