This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Regarding the recent text that I removed and that Jesswade88 reinstated (without the courtesy of an explanation, I might add, as if my edits were vandalism), stating that Oluwole appeared on Good Morning Britain (diff) is trivial information and not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Since when was talking to Richard Madeley a notable activity? Stating that Oluwole goes on TV to "argue his case" and "catch people out" (diff) is banal, and adds nothing of note to the preceeding sentence. Stating that Oluwole received "abuse" because some people said a few unpleasant things (diff) is giving such comments unwarranted significance - people in the public eye routinely get trolled and insulted, but that doesn't mean recipients should have sections about it in their articles, particularly not under the section heading of "abuse", which is rather insulting to people who have experienced serious abuse. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; being called treacherous scum by a university academic is significant. As is having to explain European Law to a television presenter hosting a discussion on the EU. Happy to rename the 'abuse' section if we come to an agreement on a new name; but the fact that Oluwole keeps on fighting - despite the pushback from the leave campaign - is noteworthy. Jesswade88 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If an MP goes on morning television and explains something to the presenter, does that get covered in their Wikipedia article? It's scraping the bottom of the barrel, presumably done in this case because the article subject hasn't done a great deal that is notable. The university academic is not notable enough to have their own article and has not been charged wiuth anything or even disciplined as far as I am aware, so why is their view considered important? Having a section on "abuse" defines the article subject not as an active agent doing things in the world, but as a passive recipient of what other people have said. It trivialises the article subject. And it is not noteworthy that someone keeps doing what they were doing ("the fact that Oluwole keeps on fighting ... is noteworthy"). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Abuse" subsection might need a less dramatic name, but the rest of the content looks fine to me. Disputes don't have to involve people who meet our (often peculiar) standards for wiki-notability in order to be worth mentioning in an article. TV appearances are the sort of thing we typically document in order to give a portrayal of activists' (and academics') careers. XOR'easter (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no dispute as far as I understand it - it was just insults. Not criticism or real abuse, just insults. On the matter of media appearances, I didn't remove the sentence that states "Oluwole is regularly in the media discussing Brexit, focusing on the details of European Union law and immigration policies", which seems fairly straightforward, but the subsequent text stating that he appears in order "to argue his case" and "catch out" those disagreeing with him is unnecessary (what else is he going to do - argue someone else's case?). And the example of 'explaining to Richard Madeley' is banal and adds nothing to what has just been said (that he regularly appears in the media). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the article is well-referenced (coverage in the The Independent and The New European, for example) and demonstrated significant political activity of Oluwole over several years and in relation to more than one event. Klbrain (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
