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. Sandstein 13:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Liquorose

Liquorose (  | 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)

Fails WP:NACTOR - has not had any significant roles in multiple notable films. As I'm reading, she appeared in two films: for a couple of minutes in Hex, and in a minor role in The Johnsons (her role isn't even mentioned in the article). She also apparently shot a couple of music videos, but none is listed as notable. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: She passes GNG as she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. Maybe the nominator did not do a quick search on the subject before nominating. This, This, this and many more are all WP:SIGCOV. This shows that the nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE like I said earlier. There is enough to prove /meet WP:GNG Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Did nobody notice that parts of the article were copied from https://www.thexpressng.com/liqouroses-see-through-outfit-stirs-controversy/ See [1] Vexations ( talk) 22:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Vexations: Can't you see how biased you are in judgment? You're comparing an article I created on the 3rd of October 2021 with a publication of 29 October 2021? You should verify stuffs before saying them please, do not misguide people. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I linked to a Earwig's Copyvio Detector report, a tool commonly used to detect copyright violations in articles. Vexations ( talk) 22:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Hi @ Idoghor Melody. It appears you have copy pasted a large amount of this article from a copyrighted source. Can you please explain? Earwig link. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Vexations and @ Novem Linguae: I really didn't expect this from either of you. You're questioning why I copy pasted meanwhile those websites were the ones who copied what was written on Wikipedia. For goodness sake are any of you not seeing the date those articles were published? The one with 65.5% was published around 29 October and the one with 52.0% was published around December 2021, I created the article 3rd of October 2021 and since on 4th or 5th, I've not added any large text to the article(apart from reverting edits and minor stuff). So can someone please explain to me what you want me to explain again? There is a page history where you can actually verify what I'm saying. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough, thexpressng.com appears to have copied content from Wikipedia in stead of the other way around. Per the Who Wrote That tool, the content thet Earwig identified was introduced in the article on October 3 October 2021, and the express article was published later, on October 29. My apologies for not checking that more carefully. Vexations ( talk) 23:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Vexations: But that was your rationale for deleting, is it still "fair enough"? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I never got into articulating what I think of the quality of the sources, but I'll gladly oblige: Tabloid journalism of the worst kind. "Dreadful" doesn't begin to describe it. I got the impression that some of the sources were not even written by people, but created by poorly coded AIs. They could not be further from peer reviewed articles by scholars published in respectable journals than earth is from the most distant object in the universe. Now you can go and call me biased: Against garbage. Vexations ( talk) 00:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your sentiment is pretty obvious but you are entitled to your opinion. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Punch (founded: 1971), Nigerian Tribune (founded : 1949), and ( Vanguard News (founded : 1983) are not blogs or gossips websites. They are in fact, reliable Nigerian sources with editorial oversights. Describing these sources as "Tabloid journalism of the worst kind." is factually inaccurate. If it really is a leg, then show us how. Either you didn't read these sources (considering you were inaccurately describing them as journals rather than news organisations) or you are interpreting them selectively. In either case, consensus are weighed based on policy-based argument and not based on inaccurate and blanket assessment of sources. I trust the closing sysop to take this into consideration when closing this discussion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  So, you are saying that [2] is serious journalism, right? — kashmīrī  ^TALK 10:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  What is it?? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Oh, a press article in the Nigerian Tribune linked to by Princess of Ara below as an apparent proof of "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Yep. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  And the National Enquirer was established in 1926. When a newspaper was established has no relation to its reliability. Vexations ( talk) 14:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  And the Daily Mail, in 1896. But see WP:DAILYMAIL. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 16:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for explaining. I misread the creation date as December. Your explanation makes perfect sense and I appreciate you clearing it up. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep  – Subject has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including;
  • Liquorose - GGB's Dance Oracle
  • 10 things to know about BBNaija first runner-up Liquorose
  • Liquorose becomes first BBNaija S6 Housemate to hit 1.M followers on Instagram
  • BBN: Female housemates playing sensual games
  • BBNaija's Liquororse bags new ambassadorial deal
  • What are BBNaija’s ‘Shine Ya Eye’ finalists up to after 3 months?
  • Reactions Trail Liquorose’s New Startling Pictures
  • Girls got bold – Behind the scenes of the GGB dance crew

Princess of Ara 19:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: None of the listed sources satisfies the requirement of in-depth coverage – virtually ALL of them are routine gossip-style news pieces about someone vying for to take part in a TV show. At the same time, none of the sources appear to be independent of the subject – all only repeat what the subject (or her agent) told them about herself. It's quite dangerous to confuse third-person narration with independence in sources, and articles about celebrities are notoriously prone to that. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  This is factually incorrect! There is no such thing as gossip-style of pieces in all the sources provided. They are In-depth independent coverage about the subject. The claim that all only repeat what the subject (or her agent) told them about herself is false and non-sequitur and that's your own opinion. We do not delete articles based on personal opinions. The duration and diversity of the sources and coverage she enjoys is a strong indicator of the notability and lasting significance of the subject. Princess of Ara 09:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Duration? Uhm... Nearly all mentions of her are from the last 5 months. There are also two very short, unsigned Vanguard articles from mid-2020 – one based entirely on an interview [3] and another [4] written in such a promotional style that it strongly smells of her then agent or PR agency.

  If being mentioned or interviewed by the media equals notability, then I should have my article written long time ago. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 12:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete — This is similar to a different article which Dan ardnt, Timtrent, DGG & Barkeep49 discussed sometime in the past, The problem is all the sources that discuss her, discuss her predominantly under the confines of she participating in a reality TV show in which she didn’t emerge successful, and even if she did emerge successful, WP:BLP1E thus isn’t suitable for mainspace. She has to be discussed in reliable sources outside of the fact that she participated in a TV reality show. Infact Barkeep49 stated to me Celestina007 ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  As expected. I've been waiting for your vote and I expected this outcome but what I don't understand is you pinging 4 different persons in this discussion. But it's ok. -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Comment — Please do not cast aspersions and please do remain civil and most of all, please assume good faith, me pinging four editors is rather immaterial as my rationale for !voting a delete is policy based and you assuming anything other than that is assuming bad faith. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Celestina007: AfDs are general discussions that happens on a daily basis and articles are discussed on a case by case basis and decisions are reached based on consensus per our established policy. AfD is not a case law and articles are not deleted or kept based on precedent from previous discussions and majority votes. Pinging four editors who have not previously contributed to this article or discussed it elsewhere is considered inappropriate per our longstanding policy. I have noticed this pattern of disruptive behavior from you for some time and let's take a look at this, where you pinged Nick in a discussion unrelated to them. In that thread, you wrote "Theoretically speaking, if it were sysops such as Nick who observed this and saw off wiki evidence you would probably have been looking at an indef block.". This put Nick in bad light as this implies that Nick is an impatient sysop who blocks people without careful thought and does so even when other sysop do not see the need for a block. This is a bad practice that should be discouraged (even by these respected admins you pinged) and should never ever be tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  which other article? DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Articles for deletion/Victory Obasi I guess. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 16:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I have been pinged to look at the article and this discussion. My opinion is independent of the fact that I have been pinged.
  The article smacks of PR placement. The first BBC item has three passing mentions, the second is a cast listing. The others, while some appear reliable, have content that does not meet out needs
  I have seen it argued that media coverage in Nigeria is, somehow, special, an that Wikipedia should have special rules for this part of Africa. Not so. The English Language Wikipedia must have a universal standard.
  Apparently notable as in WP:BLP1E, she is a failed reality TV person, and fails WP:NACTOR. The article has all the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 22:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
•  Note for the closing administrator: I have removed a non-neutral notice made by one of the delete !voters at a noticeboard, as it is not an appropriate note under our canvassing guideline. I also note that four editors were pinged to this discussion by the same !voter, presumably due to their previously-expressed opinions. Sdrqaz ( talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Soft Delete: Despite having a clear opinion on this article from the onset, I have been hesitant to participate in this AFD, because I didn't want either party to get the impression that I am against them. But this morning, my hand was "scratching" me and I decided to delve in. So we are clear that the subject does not meet any specific notability guideline (actor, content creator, reality star, probably dancing, etc.). The bone of contention is if the coverage is sufficient enough to pass GNG. Big Brother Naija is highly popular, so it normal for reliable sources to cover housemates in the year of their participation. But one thing about "significant coverage" as Wikipedia defines in relation to GNG is that it should be able to stand the test of time. Based on trends of former non-winning BBN housemates, you wouldn't get these sort of coverage in subsequent years, so even though the coverage seem like "significant coverage", it was because she was still in the spotlight. While I agree with the policy-based deletion argument of TimTrent, I find his allegation of paid editing based on the referencing completely unsubstantiated as these sort of coverage is very common to Big Brother Naija participants. So except there is more to his story, he should refrain from making such allegations on weak standpoints. Let me end by saying non-winning BBN participant are almost never notable, except they start a career in some other field that leads them to meet the specific notability requirements for that field. Unfortunately popularity does not equate notability. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 09:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've gone over all the sources, but I'll highlight one that I think is a typical example: withinnigeria This is in support of "In 2012, Liquorose was featured in the popular comedy TV series The Johnson's where she played the role of Charity." The source reports on how the comment section of Liquorose's Facebook page was overwhelmed by comments from fans after she posted a clip of herself playing Charity telling the character Spiff "some sweet words". This apparently passes for "news". It is not news, it is not serious journalism, it is not significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment  – I knew the subject of BLP1E was going to come up in the course of this debate but reading through WP:BLP1E, It says;

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when EACH of the three criteria is met (emphasis mine):

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The subject of this debate definitely does not meet all three items of the BLP1E criteria. Princess of Ara 19:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete I read every one of the proposed sources. They are none of them acceptable. Even the ones that seem descriptive are written in an untrustworthy manner making exaggerated claims that are not borne out by the actual career. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 6 January 2022 (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.