- 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. There is a clear consensus right now to delete this page, a consensus arrived at by examining sources, not judging where the article subject is from. There are a lot of assumption being made in some comments here which do not serve to help save the article from deletion.
If an editor would like to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Know that if the draft is moved back to main space without AFC acceptance, it will be deleted via CSD G4. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Yinka Ash ( | 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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo/Puff piece article. Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. UPE. scope_creep Talk 05:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I rewrote most of this page when it is mostly had fairly biased writing initially, after request from the contributor, I felt bad that he was being labelled as a paid reviewer when he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about this person, so I removed the biased language out of the article. However, now reading upon the background context of most sources used within the article I agree that it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I dowsee that he did genuinely be featured on the Forbes African under 30s. Not sure if it is a pay-to-promote scheme, but there just isn't enough sources to justify or evidence this page.
- ~
mohamed (
talk)
05:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs. Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait. In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can. They are junk.
scope_creep
Talk
06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria. Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid? per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh: Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good. Generally per best-practice, if you show
WP:THREE good
WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is
WP:PRIMARY,
WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability. Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability. They are often written by the person themselves. The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable. Hope that helps.
scope_creep
Talk
13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see, true, that would be "the SUN Nigeria" article because it's an interview of the subject matter himself and removes the neutral point of view necessity required by Wikipedia. Follow-up, would it be the same if there is a source that is in interview format but with someone within the same space, like for instance, a Frank Sinatra interview piece where he mentions facts on Ella Fitzgerald - same interview source being used as cited source in the Wikipedia article for Ella Fitzgerald to establish facts? Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh: Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good. Generally per best-practice, if you show
WP:THREE good
WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is
WP:PRIMARY,
WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability. Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability. They are often written by the person themselves. The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable. Hope that helps.
scope_creep
Talk
13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria. Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid? per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs. Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait. In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can. They are junk.
scope_creep
Talk
06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep From what I can see, this is a notable fashion designer whose work is mainly known in Nigeria, but so what? Does Wikipedia have a problem with that? I see articles about people from all over the world.-- Hazooyi ( talk) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources used the typical extravagant language found in Nigerian media, but we have more than a few of these articles about the individual, should be ok for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It might be worth evaluating the notability of Ash's brand Ashluxe/Ashluxury. Ash certainly isn't a nobody and one must consider the language typically found in Nigerian media, as Oaktree b pointed out, but most of the articles in publications we typically deem reliable are interviews ( GQ South Africa, The Guardian Nigeria, Suitcase Magazine). Most of the coverage of Ashluxe is about a particular collection they released ( Vogue, Punch, The Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard Nigeria). Mooonswimmer 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm. It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR. Most of it anyway. The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there. While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight. I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article. I can't any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be all one project. There is a coi problem which is clear.
scope_creep
Talk
09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- And likely a WP:UPE. scope_creep Talk 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm. It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR. Most of it anyway. The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there. While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight. I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article. I can't any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be all one project. There is a coi problem which is clear.
scope_creep
Talk
09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I almost AfD nominated this article myself after I came across it. What's said above is true - the last contributor was probably not a paid reviewer, but the one who created the article almost certainly was, and probably a sock account to boot (they were using an open proxy to edit). Either way, once all the cruft was stripped away, there's very little left and almost none of it from reliable sources. Interviews with the subject and a freelance writer can be set up by the subject at low-traffic sites all day long, but they don't equal significant coverage. Not only was this article likely pay-to-promote, but most of the cited "sources" look like they are as well. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO as a result. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete was on the fence but I find the Fred's reasoning to be solid. Good day— RetroCosmos talk 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the cited source lacks significant coverage; it mainly consists of interviews, passing mentions, or those 'he says, she says' type of articles. The author of the article
admitted they have a conflict of interest, and it wouldn't be surprising if this turns out to be a case of upe and/or sockpuppetry.
GSS
💬
06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, it seems there might have been a misunderstanding or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly when I contributed to your COI Notice Board. What I intended to convey was that I have my own COI notice board and there's a claim against me made by @Fred Zepelin. You can find my actual response to this claim there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1210766575, sorry for the mix-up. I will as well use this medium to reiterate that there is no affiliation between me and the subject matter nor was any transaction passed between the subject matter and myself. Thank You for your understanding.
- Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk) 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- • Keep though not all the way correct and meeting all criteria, as @ Oaktree b it should be good for GNG, additionally, using the comment by @ Mooonswimmer the language contained in same sources are unique to most Nigerian Publications. As I reflect on the situation, I realize that my actions have caused some issues with editing this page, Wikipedia had said be bold in editing and then I went and messed it up. I want to give you some insight into how I approached editing and what I intended to do. My goal was to edit the page in a similar way to other pages I thought would be a good model to follow, like those of Olivier Rousteing, Tom Ford, and Demi Lovato. These pages often include interviews, newspaper articles, and blog posts specific to the subject person.
- I understand the concerns about the promotional language, tone of the page and the need for secondary sourcing which inadvertently led to the UPE kerfuffle, I believe I was so focused on combatting and proving my innocence that I missed the goal.
- I'm still pretty new to editing on Wikipedia, so I might have missed some things, misunderstood or not truly grasped the guidelines. I'm sorry if I made any mistakes; I never hogged the article nor did I ever disallow in any form other contributions from other editors, even thanked those who did.
- Based on the advice from @Scope creep, I've decided to step back from editing this page. I don't want my mistakes to cause any more problems and I hope that this page does not suffer for my ineptitude. You may not believe me to not be a UPE, but I had the best of intentions and merely wanted to highlight an African voice.
- I want to thank those who gave me feedback and guidance along the way.
- Kind regards and I really hope I'm not breaking any more rules,
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: note to reviewer, this is the COI account that scopecreep mentioned above; they became active a few days after the account that started the article went dormant (after that account was caught using an open proxy IP). Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I went through the sources and I couldn't find one that was independent of the subject and so does not meant the
general notability criteria. Best,
Reading Beans
06:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I kept going through articles that are deemed "notable" and I noticed that majority of the sources fall within the problems that have been highlighted, yet that doesn't warrant a request for deletion. as a matter of fact, per Wikipedia policy Youtube is deemed to not be a verifiable secondary source, yet it is referenced in majority of specific groups of persons that are deemed notable. It should be highlighted that technological differences in parts of the world would show that sometimes references aren't littered all over the internet about significant persons, most times notability is written in paper, more so, with more research and comparisons both outside and within wikipedia, editors have established that biographical pages should be monumental persons with global coverage, Nigerian publications work very differently here. @ Scope creep your mention of sources being part of a PR farm is quite frankly problematic and makes me to believe that you're not being objective in your conclusion, you mentioned one sentence found in all sources, well that's normal, most at times, we will always associate are characteristic to any given subject, a mother no longer bears her name and merely becomes "Iya *name of first child*" and all will see her as that, a house of monumental building will be given a separate name and the inaugural name fades in the background so much so that publications will use the nickname over the actual registered name. This nuances is needed in making definitive decisions and failure to see that is why you keep depriving yourselves and this page actual needed knowledge, failure to see that is why you are making claims on editors that are predicated on subjective views rather than imperative and verifiable information. And that's why pages like this exist.
- Kind regards,
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- and why does @
Reading Beans user page say that your page is deleted?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh, I can’t comprehend what you’ve written above and why does me requesting for my user page to be deleted affect the notability of your client? Best,
Reading Beans
07:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase.
- Most Wikipedians have decided in an almost elitist fashion whom shall be deemed "notable" usually dependent on where the subject hails from and as such are less stringent on counterpart subject from another area of the globe
- Yes it is true that secondary sources are needed, but the rule equity allows nuances and different perspectives when creating set rules, this is what allows for other pages within Wikipedia who are against these set rules to exist and not be placed on the same microscope as another would.
- Wikipedia is by its nature a community powered knowledge sharing and provision platform, insistent on gathering differing and multitude of knowledge from varying sources, where you outrightly place bad characteristics on users with certain IPs or are less lenient with certain articles that bothers on subjects or persons you're not familiar with, it defeats the purpose.
- I mentioned your user page being deleted merely because, the frequent argument has been that as I took up the subject matter article 5 days post someone being problematically linked to same article was "dealt with" giving them grounds to say something is wrong with my page hence the constant tags and uphill battles. Even now, users are picking on other users, being condescending and using foul languages and behaviour. Me stating the fact that on the face of your page you can be deemed problematic yet not one person pointed it out shows a pick and choose mentality.
- Do not ever let your assumption override facts, merely believing someone paid for the puff pieces is not in anyway the same as having factual proof that someone did what you claim they did. You assuming all modules of publication or any aspect whatsoever of a country should work exactly as you are accustomed to defeats the purpose of the need to get as much dissenting thoughts while reaching a consensus. I hope this helps.
-
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
10:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- My userpage was not problematic. Also, this is not a thing of systematic bias—no, it’s not. I am a Nigerian and I know how the module of publication works in Nigeria. Instead of arguing, try to understand what we’re saying so that you won't make the same mistakes again. Learn, please. Using words that sounds like they were written by an AI, won't help you. Best, Reading Beans 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase.
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh, I can’t comprehend what you’ve written above and why does me requesting for my user page to be deleted affect the notability of your client? Best,
Reading Beans
07:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- and why does @
Reading Beans user page say that your page is deleted?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Almost may not be all sources were just interviews and blogs. Also seems to look like an advert. Per nominator, fails
WP: GNG.
There can be many sources in an article even from independent reliable sources yet I can't even see WP: THREE.
Otuọcha ( talk) 08:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) - Delete per all the reasons given above. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete promotional, can't establish notability. Tehonk ( talk) 23:54, 5 March 2024 (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. There is a clear consensus right now to delete this page, a consensus arrived at by examining sources, not judging where the article subject is from. There are a lot of assumption being made in some comments here which do not serve to help save the article from deletion.
If an editor would like to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Know that if the draft is moved back to main space without AFC acceptance, it will be deleted via CSD G4. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Yinka Ash ( | 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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo/Puff piece article. Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. UPE. scope_creep Talk 05:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I rewrote most of this page when it is mostly had fairly biased writing initially, after request from the contributor, I felt bad that he was being labelled as a paid reviewer when he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about this person, so I removed the biased language out of the article. However, now reading upon the background context of most sources used within the article I agree that it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I dowsee that he did genuinely be featured on the Forbes African under 30s. Not sure if it is a pay-to-promote scheme, but there just isn't enough sources to justify or evidence this page.
- ~
mohamed (
talk)
05:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs. Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait. In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can. They are junk.
scope_creep
Talk
06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria. Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid? per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh: Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good. Generally per best-practice, if you show
WP:THREE good
WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is
WP:PRIMARY,
WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability. Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability. They are often written by the person themselves. The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable. Hope that helps.
scope_creep
Talk
13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see, true, that would be "the SUN Nigeria" article because it's an interview of the subject matter himself and removes the neutral point of view necessity required by Wikipedia. Follow-up, would it be the same if there is a source that is in interview format but with someone within the same space, like for instance, a Frank Sinatra interview piece where he mentions facts on Ella Fitzgerald - same interview source being used as cited source in the Wikipedia article for Ella Fitzgerald to establish facts? Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh: Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good. Generally per best-practice, if you show
WP:THREE good
WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is
WP:PRIMARY,
WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability. Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability. They are often written by the person themselves. The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable. Hope that helps.
scope_creep
Talk
13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria. Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid? per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs. Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait. In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can. They are junk.
scope_creep
Talk
06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep From what I can see, this is a notable fashion designer whose work is mainly known in Nigeria, but so what? Does Wikipedia have a problem with that? I see articles about people from all over the world.-- Hazooyi ( talk) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources used the typical extravagant language found in Nigerian media, but we have more than a few of these articles about the individual, should be ok for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It might be worth evaluating the notability of Ash's brand Ashluxe/Ashluxury. Ash certainly isn't a nobody and one must consider the language typically found in Nigerian media, as Oaktree b pointed out, but most of the articles in publications we typically deem reliable are interviews ( GQ South Africa, The Guardian Nigeria, Suitcase Magazine). Most of the coverage of Ashluxe is about a particular collection they released ( Vogue, Punch, The Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard Nigeria). Mooonswimmer 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm. It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR. Most of it anyway. The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there. While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight. I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article. I can't any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be all one project. There is a coi problem which is clear.
scope_creep
Talk
09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- And likely a WP:UPE. scope_creep Talk 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm. It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR. Most of it anyway. The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there. While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight. I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article. I can't any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be all one project. There is a coi problem which is clear.
scope_creep
Talk
09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I almost AfD nominated this article myself after I came across it. What's said above is true - the last contributor was probably not a paid reviewer, but the one who created the article almost certainly was, and probably a sock account to boot (they were using an open proxy to edit). Either way, once all the cruft was stripped away, there's very little left and almost none of it from reliable sources. Interviews with the subject and a freelance writer can be set up by the subject at low-traffic sites all day long, but they don't equal significant coverage. Not only was this article likely pay-to-promote, but most of the cited "sources" look like they are as well. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO as a result. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete was on the fence but I find the Fred's reasoning to be solid. Good day— RetroCosmos talk 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the cited source lacks significant coverage; it mainly consists of interviews, passing mentions, or those 'he says, she says' type of articles. The author of the article
admitted they have a conflict of interest, and it wouldn't be surprising if this turns out to be a case of upe and/or sockpuppetry.
GSS
💬
06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, it seems there might have been a misunderstanding or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly when I contributed to your COI Notice Board. What I intended to convey was that I have my own COI notice board and there's a claim against me made by @Fred Zepelin. You can find my actual response to this claim there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1210766575, sorry for the mix-up. I will as well use this medium to reiterate that there is no affiliation between me and the subject matter nor was any transaction passed between the subject matter and myself. Thank You for your understanding.
- Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk) 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- • Keep though not all the way correct and meeting all criteria, as @ Oaktree b it should be good for GNG, additionally, using the comment by @ Mooonswimmer the language contained in same sources are unique to most Nigerian Publications. As I reflect on the situation, I realize that my actions have caused some issues with editing this page, Wikipedia had said be bold in editing and then I went and messed it up. I want to give you some insight into how I approached editing and what I intended to do. My goal was to edit the page in a similar way to other pages I thought would be a good model to follow, like those of Olivier Rousteing, Tom Ford, and Demi Lovato. These pages often include interviews, newspaper articles, and blog posts specific to the subject person.
- I understand the concerns about the promotional language, tone of the page and the need for secondary sourcing which inadvertently led to the UPE kerfuffle, I believe I was so focused on combatting and proving my innocence that I missed the goal.
- I'm still pretty new to editing on Wikipedia, so I might have missed some things, misunderstood or not truly grasped the guidelines. I'm sorry if I made any mistakes; I never hogged the article nor did I ever disallow in any form other contributions from other editors, even thanked those who did.
- Based on the advice from @Scope creep, I've decided to step back from editing this page. I don't want my mistakes to cause any more problems and I hope that this page does not suffer for my ineptitude. You may not believe me to not be a UPE, but I had the best of intentions and merely wanted to highlight an African voice.
- I want to thank those who gave me feedback and guidance along the way.
- Kind regards and I really hope I'm not breaking any more rules,
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: note to reviewer, this is the COI account that scopecreep mentioned above; they became active a few days after the account that started the article went dormant (after that account was caught using an open proxy IP). Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I went through the sources and I couldn't find one that was independent of the subject and so does not meant the
general notability criteria. Best,
Reading Beans
06:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I kept going through articles that are deemed "notable" and I noticed that majority of the sources fall within the problems that have been highlighted, yet that doesn't warrant a request for deletion. as a matter of fact, per Wikipedia policy Youtube is deemed to not be a verifiable secondary source, yet it is referenced in majority of specific groups of persons that are deemed notable. It should be highlighted that technological differences in parts of the world would show that sometimes references aren't littered all over the internet about significant persons, most times notability is written in paper, more so, with more research and comparisons both outside and within wikipedia, editors have established that biographical pages should be monumental persons with global coverage, Nigerian publications work very differently here. @ Scope creep your mention of sources being part of a PR farm is quite frankly problematic and makes me to believe that you're not being objective in your conclusion, you mentioned one sentence found in all sources, well that's normal, most at times, we will always associate are characteristic to any given subject, a mother no longer bears her name and merely becomes "Iya *name of first child*" and all will see her as that, a house of monumental building will be given a separate name and the inaugural name fades in the background so much so that publications will use the nickname over the actual registered name. This nuances is needed in making definitive decisions and failure to see that is why you keep depriving yourselves and this page actual needed knowledge, failure to see that is why you are making claims on editors that are predicated on subjective views rather than imperative and verifiable information. And that's why pages like this exist.
- Kind regards,
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- and why does @
Reading Beans user page say that your page is deleted?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh, I can’t comprehend what you’ve written above and why does me requesting for my user page to be deleted affect the notability of your client? Best,
Reading Beans
07:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase.
- Most Wikipedians have decided in an almost elitist fashion whom shall be deemed "notable" usually dependent on where the subject hails from and as such are less stringent on counterpart subject from another area of the globe
- Yes it is true that secondary sources are needed, but the rule equity allows nuances and different perspectives when creating set rules, this is what allows for other pages within Wikipedia who are against these set rules to exist and not be placed on the same microscope as another would.
- Wikipedia is by its nature a community powered knowledge sharing and provision platform, insistent on gathering differing and multitude of knowledge from varying sources, where you outrightly place bad characteristics on users with certain IPs or are less lenient with certain articles that bothers on subjects or persons you're not familiar with, it defeats the purpose.
- I mentioned your user page being deleted merely because, the frequent argument has been that as I took up the subject matter article 5 days post someone being problematically linked to same article was "dealt with" giving them grounds to say something is wrong with my page hence the constant tags and uphill battles. Even now, users are picking on other users, being condescending and using foul languages and behaviour. Me stating the fact that on the face of your page you can be deemed problematic yet not one person pointed it out shows a pick and choose mentality.
- Do not ever let your assumption override facts, merely believing someone paid for the puff pieces is not in anyway the same as having factual proof that someone did what you claim they did. You assuming all modules of publication or any aspect whatsoever of a country should work exactly as you are accustomed to defeats the purpose of the need to get as much dissenting thoughts while reaching a consensus. I hope this helps.
-
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
10:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- My userpage was not problematic. Also, this is not a thing of systematic bias—no, it’s not. I am a Nigerian and I know how the module of publication works in Nigeria. Instead of arguing, try to understand what we’re saying so that you won't make the same mistakes again. Learn, please. Using words that sounds like they were written by an AI, won't help you. Best, Reading Beans 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase.
- @
Anoghena Okoyomoh, I can’t comprehend what you’ve written above and why does me requesting for my user page to be deleted affect the notability of your client? Best,
Reading Beans
07:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- and why does @
Reading Beans user page say that your page is deleted?
Anoghena Okoyomoh (
talk)
07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Almost may not be all sources were just interviews and blogs. Also seems to look like an advert. Per nominator, fails
WP: GNG.
There can be many sources in an article even from independent reliable sources yet I can't even see WP: THREE.
Otuọcha ( talk) 08:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) - Delete per all the reasons given above. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete promotional, can't establish notability. Tehonk ( talk) 23:54, 5 March 2024 (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.