- 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. Consensus among established editors is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Kennedy Obohwemu
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kennedy Obohwemu ( | 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)
I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, it looks like there were a lot of promotional stuff cleanup done in the article but still it doesn't look like notability was proven to me. Tehonk ( talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment.Proquest is finding two reviews and an interview with bio for his novel Twisted on AllAfrica.com (Twisted - a Must Read. AllAfrica.com 19 Feb 2015 & Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print [opinion]. AllAfrica.com; Washington. 08 Mar 2015. & Writing Is My Passion - Author of Twisted AllAfrica.com; Washington. 05 Mar 2015.). I don't know anything about how usable AllAfrica is as a source for this kind of thing, though. I also worry that two different subjects of this name are being conflated here; the author of the vaccination article seems to be based at the University of Sunderland in the UK, though the subject might have moved. Nothing obvious on Proquest for his other novels.LeaningDelete unless reviews of his other works can be found, as well as sorting out whether the two profiles are actually the same person. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looks like they are the same person, but the article has been gutted for sourcing issues, and now barely hangs together. The subject does not appear notable under WP:PROF.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Re AllAfrica: it is a reposter of African newspapers. The "Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print" piece appears to actually be from
Vanguard (Nigeria)
[1], for which see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Vanguard (Nigeria): "The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so." —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, from my past experience it appears to aggregate content some of which is reliable and some of which is not. It's even harder to tell the difference when Proquest has stripped out the original source. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Re AllAfrica: it is a reposter of African newspapers. The "Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print" piece appears to actually be from
Vanguard (Nigeria)
[1], for which see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Vanguard (Nigeria): "The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so." —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I was just curious to know why you think the subject might have left the university. Nicola247 ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looks like they are the same person, but the article has been gutted for sourcing issues, and now barely hangs together. The subject does not appear notable under WP:PROF.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Just thought I'd mention that there is a lot of sockpuppet activity on this article. I don't know whether it is sufficient for CSD G5 but many of the most active editors were blocked over the weekend.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- For better or worse, I believe the edits of MrsSnoozyTurtle have invalidated G5 since the socks are not the only primary editors of the page. Primefac ( talk) 07:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrsSnoozyTurtle mostly removed promotional material. I don’t think that’s “substantial contribution “ in the spirit of G5. In other words their net <250 char contribution, according to
the tool, should not invalidate G5. ☆
Bri (
talk)
14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "net contribution" appears to be
Max. text deleted 2023-05-08 08:11 • MrsSnoozyTurtle • -8,125which in my mind counts assubstantial edits by others
(from WP:G5). Primefac ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- This is a little vexing since G5 does require that an article have no "substantial edits" by other editors, but does that effectively reward sock-using COI editors, if another editor recognizes their advertising and tries to remove it? In this case regarding the contributions of MrsSnoozyTurtle, here they are: first requesting speedy deletion under G11 (advertising!)
[2]; then tagging referencing, COI, and verifiability issues
[3]
[4], then removing passages of text with referencing problems
[5]
[6]
[7], and finally deleting unreferenced claims in the infobox and removing an "advert" tag per their cleanup just completed
[8]. Do we have leeway here under the G5 rubric? ☆
Bri (
talk)
15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've contested G5s in the past because good-faith editors had done copy editing or added sources, but here I'd be happy to discount MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits, none of which contribute substantial material. The rubric might need discussion to clarify this issue. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little vexing since G5 does require that an article have no "substantial edits" by other editors, but does that effectively reward sock-using COI editors, if another editor recognizes their advertising and tries to remove it? In this case regarding the contributions of MrsSnoozyTurtle, here they are: first requesting speedy deletion under G11 (advertising!)
[2]; then tagging referencing, COI, and verifiability issues
[3]
[4], then removing passages of text with referencing problems
[5]
[6]
[7], and finally deleting unreferenced claims in the infobox and removing an "advert" tag per their cleanup just completed
[8]. Do we have leeway here under the G5 rubric? ☆
Bri (
talk)
15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "net contribution" appears to be
- Delete. G5 eligible or not, this should be deleted. NAUTHOR requires multiple reliable independent significant reviews, which is not the case here. The article currently has just one review. The Twisted review from Vanguard (published in 2015) is an advertorial. Consider its line
here:
‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects
(neither quoted or attributed). Compare this with how the author himself advertised the book on Linkedin in 2014,‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects.
I am highly surprised that the content for this is exactly the same and not even paraphrased at all. More lines that are completely identical includesNigeria has the second largest newspaper market in Africa (after Egypt) with an estimated circulation of several million copies daily in 2003
. The line from Linkedin:The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot
is also especially thinly arranged to:The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot, a suspenseful story, with remarkable twists and turns.
in the Vanguard article. As such, the article is not a review but an extremely thinly paraphrased and in some cases exactly identical press release/advertorial from a marginally reliable website. Otherwise, the current article is in very poor shape, and there is no other sourcing I can find to GNG/NAUTHOR. The subject also fails other NPROF criteria and the citations are very low. So delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC) - Delete. Mostly as an IAR G5 speedy, because I'm sure MrsSnoozyTurtle had no intention of preventing deletion with their edits. But also because the analysis above makes clear that the Vanguard review is unreliable, I'm also unconvinced of the reliability of the "Readers' Favorite" review, and even if we could count both of them we would have only two reviews for one book, below my usual standard for
WP:AUTHOR. Beyond the sockpuppetry, the promotional pattern of editing isn't really a reason for deletion, but it doesn't help. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have read the review on Vanguard. It is independent and reliable. Best,
Reading Beans (
talk)
09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Reading Beans: The Vanguard "review" is substantially identical to
an earlier advert by the author himself in 2014, the year before when Vanguard article was written. If they are basically all identical (see my rationale above on the exactly same lines), I don't understand how it is still independent. Thanks.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ VickKiang, with your analysis, it is clear that the author of the review copied part of a promotional blurb for his review. I didn't vote because I added a notability tag prior to the nomination. It is now clear to me that it should be deleted. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've noticed a lot of this from Vanguard lately. Might me time to talk about changing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources Nswix ( talk) 00:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Reading Beans: The Vanguard "review" is substantially identical to
an earlier advert by the author himself in 2014, the year before when Vanguard article was written. If they are basically all identical (see my rationale above on the exactly same lines), I don't understand how it is still independent. Thanks.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have read the review on Vanguard. It is independent and reliable. Best,
Reading Beans (
talk)
09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: For lack of SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a review by Chris Fischer of Readers Favorite which I found on the author's current page:
https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/twisted/2 and another for Frozen by ebook Cover Design Awards:
https://www.thebookdesigner.com/e-book-cover-design-awards-march-2015/ It is my belief that these reviews are independent and reliable.
EvaRey (
talk)
08:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC) —
EvaRey (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Just to add to my previous comment... Rather than rely on personal opinions or conjectures, I would suggest that the Admins find out exactly how Readers Favorite and TheBookDesigner.com go about their reviews, just to be sure there's no influence from authors in their review process. This will help establish credibility, independence, and reliability. I think it's important we establish the facts of the matter so the Admins can make informed decisions. EvaRey ( talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Final comment- the above "award" is from a
self-publishing website. At the bottom, it says
Copyright selfpublishing.com All Rights Reserved. © 2023
. VickKiang (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC) - Keep I think other reviews of this subject's works exist: http://donovansliteraryservices.com/october-2014-issue.html. From the discussion so far, emphasis has been on the subject's books (RE: Twisted). Looking through his current page, I can see other notable feats. He was chairman of Association of Nigerian Authors in Kogi State. He founded the Association of Nigerian Student Authors. He won the University of Sunderland's 2022 Three Minute Thesis Competition, and perhaps other notable achievements that are not currently on his page. Perhaps we should consider updating his page with more information, rather than outright deletion. Nicola247 ( talk) 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Nicola247 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I believe the subject’s vaccination research could be of public interest, especially as COVID-19 has refused to go away. His milk fluoridation research could also be a valuable resource, as is his research on sexually transmitted infections. Scholars, students, and the general public could benefit from his profile and similar people who have advanced the knowledge and understanding of their respective fields. The administrators should think about adding material to his page, as it is evident there is more to the subject than what is currently there. I believe his page should remain because his profile can help disseminate information to a wide audience. KimiBee ( talk) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — KimiBee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, primarily to inform those editors arguing Keep that your claims can't be considered unless they are supported by reliable, independent secondary sources. Would those advocating Delete look over the sources brought into this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- Why would such obvious socking have any impact on an AfD at all? Tehonk ( talk) 05:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument, could the Admins please advise editors to focus on the substance of the argument itself? Could the Admins please remind everyone of the need to avoid ad hominem argument, to avoid taking an accusatory tone, to assume good faith and remain civil? Could we also be reminded of the need to stop dismissing other editors' arguments as irrelevant? EvaRey ( talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Lots of obvious socking going on but no substantial evidence of notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. There are a couple of papers in gscholar by the subject related to childhood vaccinations but they have zero citations. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. nothing to see here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC).
- Comment. I appreciate the diligence of editors/admins in maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia content. It's essential that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view of the subject matter. However, an editor's claim that the subject's vaccination research "zero citations" is inaccurate. The research in question has indeed been cited by multiple other researchers, which signifies its importance within the academic community. For reference purposes, see the citations on Google Scholar, PubMed, Research Gate, Semantics Scholar, to mention but a few. If you have reservations about the subject’s vaccination research, which was published by Cambridge University Press, please feel free to discuss them, and everyone can work together to address them appropriately. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — Ozianamayioza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I can't see any citations in this list.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
- There are clear and obvious citations of the subject's vaccination research. If the above direct links are not working on your browser, try typing the title of the research on Google Scholar, for example, and click search. Use the same approach for other databases. You will find that the research CERTAINLY has citations. For a discussion of this nature, it is imperative that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can't see any citations in this list.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
- Comment. It is worth a look at the talk page and (all very recent) contribution history of
Ozianamayioza.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC).
- The incessant accusatory tones are not helping anybody. Wikipedia is for everyone, not a select few. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. There appears to be misinformation from editors about this academic. One editor suggested that the subject has left the university, without providing any source or evidence to corroborate his claim. He opined that the subject might no longer be involved in higher education and as such should not even be considered an academic in the first place. The researcher’s milk fluoridation research was published by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health last month (September 2023), and it is evident from the publication that he is still active in academics at the University of Sunderland. Another editor is saying that the subject’s vaccination research has “zero citations” on Google Scholar. Such misinformation might mislead other editors and sway the minds of innocent bystanders. I think it’s important we stick to facts, avoid bias and avoid spreading half-truths. Or is there an agenda that some of us are not privy to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola247 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. To pass WP:PROF, academics are only required to meet one of eight criteria. For Criterion 1, the person's research should have made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. When evaluating whether this criterion is satisfied, Wikipedia suggests that we use Worldcat to consider how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries. For the academic in question, this information is found here. This academic seems to meet this criterion. MukhtarAbdul ( talk) 13:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — MukhtarAbdul ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. There are reviews of the subject's work on Reader's Favorite Book Reviews and Midwest Book Reviews. The subject's milk fluoridation research and other relevant information are currently not on his profile. The natural next step should be for us to update his page, rather than delete it. KimiBee ( talk) 16:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of the criteria for
WP:PROF is for the person to have been a
fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellowship status as a highly selective honor. The subject seems to have been awarded
Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) and
Fellowship of the Royal Society for Public Health (FRSPH).
Sophie9870 (
talk)
20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC) —
Sophie9870 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- FHEA is the second-lowest of four membership levels, not a selective honor. FRSPH is open to anyone with an advanced degree or five years of work experience, not a selective honor. There are many different types of things called "fellowships"; these ones are not the type described in WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Espresso Addict and David Eppstein's reasoning. There isn't much indication that the subject is notable as an academic or author and the the lack of WP:SIGCOV by independent, reliable sources tells us the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Reading Beans's !vote -- Reading Beans understands Nigerian sources and separate legitimate articles written in Nigerian journalist's flowery style vs. pay-for-play articles in the same major publications.
- --
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's important to approach discussions about a group of people or a profession with fairness and avoid making sweeping generalizations or engaging in discriminatory statements. Accusing Nigerian journalists, or any group of journalists, of employing "pay-for-play articles" is pointblank discriminatory. It's essential to remember that journalism, like any field, has a wide range of professionals with diverse ethics and standards. If you have concerns about the ethical practices of journalists or media outlets, it's better to address them based on specific instances and provide evidence to support your claims. Engaging in constructive dialogue and promoting responsible journalism is a more productive approach than making blanket statements that may perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination. Nicola247 ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. In case there's any doubt, the citation record does not support a pass of WP:PROF even in my (generally generous) estimation. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. No evidence this passes PROF in any way, I don't see any sourcing that has WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The above KEEP votes did a complete BEFORE and they were not able to list any sources which address the subject directly and indepth.. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The accounts in this afd that I just blocked are
Confirmed to each other. I haven't looked much beyond the direct connections, so more may be to come --
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Consensus among established editors is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Kennedy Obohwemu
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kennedy Obohwemu ( | 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)
I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, it looks like there were a lot of promotional stuff cleanup done in the article but still it doesn't look like notability was proven to me. Tehonk ( talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment.Proquest is finding two reviews and an interview with bio for his novel Twisted on AllAfrica.com (Twisted - a Must Read. AllAfrica.com 19 Feb 2015 & Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print [opinion]. AllAfrica.com; Washington. 08 Mar 2015. & Writing Is My Passion - Author of Twisted AllAfrica.com; Washington. 05 Mar 2015.). I don't know anything about how usable AllAfrica is as a source for this kind of thing, though. I also worry that two different subjects of this name are being conflated here; the author of the vaccination article seems to be based at the University of Sunderland in the UK, though the subject might have moved. Nothing obvious on Proquest for his other novels.LeaningDelete unless reviews of his other works can be found, as well as sorting out whether the two profiles are actually the same person. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looks like they are the same person, but the article has been gutted for sourcing issues, and now barely hangs together. The subject does not appear notable under WP:PROF.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Re AllAfrica: it is a reposter of African newspapers. The "Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print" piece appears to actually be from
Vanguard (Nigeria)
[1], for which see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Vanguard (Nigeria): "The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so." —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, from my past experience it appears to aggregate content some of which is reliable and some of which is not. It's even harder to tell the difference when Proquest has stripped out the original source. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Re AllAfrica: it is a reposter of African newspapers. The "Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print" piece appears to actually be from
Vanguard (Nigeria)
[1], for which see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Vanguard (Nigeria): "The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so." —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I was just curious to know why you think the subject might have left the university. Nicola247 ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, looks like they are the same person, but the article has been gutted for sourcing issues, and now barely hangs together. The subject does not appear notable under WP:PROF.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Just thought I'd mention that there is a lot of sockpuppet activity on this article. I don't know whether it is sufficient for CSD G5 but many of the most active editors were blocked over the weekend.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- For better or worse, I believe the edits of MrsSnoozyTurtle have invalidated G5 since the socks are not the only primary editors of the page. Primefac ( talk) 07:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrsSnoozyTurtle mostly removed promotional material. I don’t think that’s “substantial contribution “ in the spirit of G5. In other words their net <250 char contribution, according to
the tool, should not invalidate G5. ☆
Bri (
talk)
14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "net contribution" appears to be
Max. text deleted 2023-05-08 08:11 • MrsSnoozyTurtle • -8,125which in my mind counts assubstantial edits by others
(from WP:G5). Primefac ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- This is a little vexing since G5 does require that an article have no "substantial edits" by other editors, but does that effectively reward sock-using COI editors, if another editor recognizes their advertising and tries to remove it? In this case regarding the contributions of MrsSnoozyTurtle, here they are: first requesting speedy deletion under G11 (advertising!)
[2]; then tagging referencing, COI, and verifiability issues
[3]
[4], then removing passages of text with referencing problems
[5]
[6]
[7], and finally deleting unreferenced claims in the infobox and removing an "advert" tag per their cleanup just completed
[8]. Do we have leeway here under the G5 rubric? ☆
Bri (
talk)
15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've contested G5s in the past because good-faith editors had done copy editing or added sources, but here I'd be happy to discount MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits, none of which contribute substantial material. The rubric might need discussion to clarify this issue. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little vexing since G5 does require that an article have no "substantial edits" by other editors, but does that effectively reward sock-using COI editors, if another editor recognizes their advertising and tries to remove it? In this case regarding the contributions of MrsSnoozyTurtle, here they are: first requesting speedy deletion under G11 (advertising!)
[2]; then tagging referencing, COI, and verifiability issues
[3]
[4], then removing passages of text with referencing problems
[5]
[6]
[7], and finally deleting unreferenced claims in the infobox and removing an "advert" tag per their cleanup just completed
[8]. Do we have leeway here under the G5 rubric? ☆
Bri (
talk)
15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "net contribution" appears to be
- Delete. G5 eligible or not, this should be deleted. NAUTHOR requires multiple reliable independent significant reviews, which is not the case here. The article currently has just one review. The Twisted review from Vanguard (published in 2015) is an advertorial. Consider its line
here:
‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects
(neither quoted or attributed). Compare this with how the author himself advertised the book on Linkedin in 2014,‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects.
I am highly surprised that the content for this is exactly the same and not even paraphrased at all. More lines that are completely identical includesNigeria has the second largest newspaper market in Africa (after Egypt) with an estimated circulation of several million copies daily in 2003
. The line from Linkedin:The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot
is also especially thinly arranged to:The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot, a suspenseful story, with remarkable twists and turns.
in the Vanguard article. As such, the article is not a review but an extremely thinly paraphrased and in some cases exactly identical press release/advertorial from a marginally reliable website. Otherwise, the current article is in very poor shape, and there is no other sourcing I can find to GNG/NAUTHOR. The subject also fails other NPROF criteria and the citations are very low. So delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC) - Delete. Mostly as an IAR G5 speedy, because I'm sure MrsSnoozyTurtle had no intention of preventing deletion with their edits. But also because the analysis above makes clear that the Vanguard review is unreliable, I'm also unconvinced of the reliability of the "Readers' Favorite" review, and even if we could count both of them we would have only two reviews for one book, below my usual standard for
WP:AUTHOR. Beyond the sockpuppetry, the promotional pattern of editing isn't really a reason for deletion, but it doesn't help. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have read the review on Vanguard. It is independent and reliable. Best,
Reading Beans (
talk)
09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Reading Beans: The Vanguard "review" is substantially identical to
an earlier advert by the author himself in 2014, the year before when Vanguard article was written. If they are basically all identical (see my rationale above on the exactly same lines), I don't understand how it is still independent. Thanks.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ VickKiang, with your analysis, it is clear that the author of the review copied part of a promotional blurb for his review. I didn't vote because I added a notability tag prior to the nomination. It is now clear to me that it should be deleted. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've noticed a lot of this from Vanguard lately. Might me time to talk about changing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources Nswix ( talk) 00:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Reading Beans: The Vanguard "review" is substantially identical to
an earlier advert by the author himself in 2014, the year before when Vanguard article was written. If they are basically all identical (see my rationale above on the exactly same lines), I don't understand how it is still independent. Thanks.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have read the review on Vanguard. It is independent and reliable. Best,
Reading Beans (
talk)
09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: For lack of SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a review by Chris Fischer of Readers Favorite which I found on the author's current page:
https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/twisted/2 and another for Frozen by ebook Cover Design Awards:
https://www.thebookdesigner.com/e-book-cover-design-awards-march-2015/ It is my belief that these reviews are independent and reliable.
EvaRey (
talk)
08:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC) —
EvaRey (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Just to add to my previous comment... Rather than rely on personal opinions or conjectures, I would suggest that the Admins find out exactly how Readers Favorite and TheBookDesigner.com go about their reviews, just to be sure there's no influence from authors in their review process. This will help establish credibility, independence, and reliability. I think it's important we establish the facts of the matter so the Admins can make informed decisions. EvaRey ( talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Final comment- the above "award" is from a
self-publishing website. At the bottom, it says
Copyright selfpublishing.com All Rights Reserved. © 2023
. VickKiang (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC) - Keep I think other reviews of this subject's works exist: http://donovansliteraryservices.com/october-2014-issue.html. From the discussion so far, emphasis has been on the subject's books (RE: Twisted). Looking through his current page, I can see other notable feats. He was chairman of Association of Nigerian Authors in Kogi State. He founded the Association of Nigerian Student Authors. He won the University of Sunderland's 2022 Three Minute Thesis Competition, and perhaps other notable achievements that are not currently on his page. Perhaps we should consider updating his page with more information, rather than outright deletion. Nicola247 ( talk) 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Nicola247 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I believe the subject’s vaccination research could be of public interest, especially as COVID-19 has refused to go away. His milk fluoridation research could also be a valuable resource, as is his research on sexually transmitted infections. Scholars, students, and the general public could benefit from his profile and similar people who have advanced the knowledge and understanding of their respective fields. The administrators should think about adding material to his page, as it is evident there is more to the subject than what is currently there. I believe his page should remain because his profile can help disseminate information to a wide audience. KimiBee ( talk) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — KimiBee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, primarily to inform those editors arguing Keep that your claims can't be considered unless they are supported by reliable, independent secondary sources. Would those advocating Delete look over the sources brought into this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- Why would such obvious socking have any impact on an AfD at all? Tehonk ( talk) 05:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument, could the Admins please advise editors to focus on the substance of the argument itself? Could the Admins please remind everyone of the need to avoid ad hominem argument, to avoid taking an accusatory tone, to assume good faith and remain civil? Could we also be reminded of the need to stop dismissing other editors' arguments as irrelevant? EvaRey ( talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Lots of obvious socking going on but no substantial evidence of notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. There are a couple of papers in gscholar by the subject related to childhood vaccinations but they have zero citations. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. nothing to see here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC).
- Comment. I appreciate the diligence of editors/admins in maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia content. It's essential that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view of the subject matter. However, an editor's claim that the subject's vaccination research "zero citations" is inaccurate. The research in question has indeed been cited by multiple other researchers, which signifies its importance within the academic community. For reference purposes, see the citations on Google Scholar, PubMed, Research Gate, Semantics Scholar, to mention but a few. If you have reservations about the subject’s vaccination research, which was published by Cambridge University Press, please feel free to discuss them, and everyone can work together to address them appropriately. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — Ozianamayioza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I can't see any citations in this list.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
- There are clear and obvious citations of the subject's vaccination research. If the above direct links are not working on your browser, try typing the title of the research on Google Scholar, for example, and click search. Use the same approach for other databases. You will find that the research CERTAINLY has citations. For a discussion of this nature, it is imperative that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can't see any citations in this list.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
- Comment. It is worth a look at the talk page and (all very recent) contribution history of
Ozianamayioza.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC).
- The incessant accusatory tones are not helping anybody. Wikipedia is for everyone, not a select few. Ozianamayioza ( talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. There appears to be misinformation from editors about this academic. One editor suggested that the subject has left the university, without providing any source or evidence to corroborate his claim. He opined that the subject might no longer be involved in higher education and as such should not even be considered an academic in the first place. The researcher’s milk fluoridation research was published by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health last month (September 2023), and it is evident from the publication that he is still active in academics at the University of Sunderland. Another editor is saying that the subject’s vaccination research has “zero citations” on Google Scholar. Such misinformation might mislead other editors and sway the minds of innocent bystanders. I think it’s important we stick to facts, avoid bias and avoid spreading half-truths. Or is there an agenda that some of us are not privy to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola247 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. To pass WP:PROF, academics are only required to meet one of eight criteria. For Criterion 1, the person's research should have made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. When evaluating whether this criterion is satisfied, Wikipedia suggests that we use Worldcat to consider how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries. For the academic in question, this information is found here. This academic seems to meet this criterion. MukhtarAbdul ( talk) 13:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — MukhtarAbdul ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. There are reviews of the subject's work on Reader's Favorite Book Reviews and Midwest Book Reviews. The subject's milk fluoridation research and other relevant information are currently not on his profile. The natural next step should be for us to update his page, rather than delete it. KimiBee ( talk) 16:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of the criteria for
WP:PROF is for the person to have been a
fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellowship status as a highly selective honor. The subject seems to have been awarded
Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) and
Fellowship of the Royal Society for Public Health (FRSPH).
Sophie9870 (
talk)
20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC) —
Sophie9870 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- FHEA is the second-lowest of four membership levels, not a selective honor. FRSPH is open to anyone with an advanced degree or five years of work experience, not a selective honor. There are many different types of things called "fellowships"; these ones are not the type described in WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Espresso Addict and David Eppstein's reasoning. There isn't much indication that the subject is notable as an academic or author and the the lack of WP:SIGCOV by independent, reliable sources tells us the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Reading Beans's !vote -- Reading Beans understands Nigerian sources and separate legitimate articles written in Nigerian journalist's flowery style vs. pay-for-play articles in the same major publications.
- --
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's important to approach discussions about a group of people or a profession with fairness and avoid making sweeping generalizations or engaging in discriminatory statements. Accusing Nigerian journalists, or any group of journalists, of employing "pay-for-play articles" is pointblank discriminatory. It's essential to remember that journalism, like any field, has a wide range of professionals with diverse ethics and standards. If you have concerns about the ethical practices of journalists or media outlets, it's better to address them based on specific instances and provide evidence to support your claims. Engaging in constructive dialogue and promoting responsible journalism is a more productive approach than making blanket statements that may perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination. Nicola247 ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. In case there's any doubt, the citation record does not support a pass of WP:PROF even in my (generally generous) estimation. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. No evidence this passes PROF in any way, I don't see any sourcing that has WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The above KEEP votes did a complete BEFORE and they were not able to list any sources which address the subject directly and indepth.. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The accounts in this afd that I just blocked are Confirmed to each other. I haven't looked much beyond the direct connections, so more may be to come --
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.