Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Laoye

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Laoye

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not have significant coverage in reliable press. She does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE shows she has only one reliable source that mentions her in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Darreg (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOREASON/WP:JUSTAVOTE the !vote above makes no sense whatsoever and i believe it should not be considered

Hello editor Darreg, an article, as per WP:GOLDEN RULE, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO is main space worthy when it has significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject. The subject of our discussion does not satisfy the aforementioned.

Furthermore when you !vote a delete or keep you are to provide a rationale, mere commenting 'keep' or 'delete' may not count as this is not a !voting section/process, but a section where polices are debated on. Please do present your rationale as this enables a productive discussion amongst editors, feel free to find and provide us with reliable sources (WP:RS) that discuss our subject of discussion with WP:INDEPTH. The keyword here is relaible. Cheers.Celestina007(talk) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what such a dishonest and erroneous AFD nomination deserves. An empty string, I can't waste alphabets for such. And its reliable, not relaible. The "i" comes before the "a". Darreg (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable musician passes WP:MUSICBIO. She won the headies which is a notable award. She has also been discussed in reliable sources like this and this ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that; both urls provided by above editor Mahveotm are dead links that redirects to a Not Found page. Further more i urge and beseech admin closing this page to do a google search on subject of discussion, he/she would dicover this articles subject does not qualify any guideline provided in WP:MUSICBIO. Also, @Mahveotm how does winning one non-notable award make her qualify WP:MUSICBIO, please can you tell us which guideline in WP:MUSICBIO suggests that to us? A Delete is most plausible as this may be a case of WP:NotJustYet.Celestina007 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the links directly from the references and had no idea the were dead links. Celestina007, you call The Headies non-notable? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mahveotm come on, juxtaposed with the yard-sticks used in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines such as the Grammys, it is very very non-notable. We both know the headies isnt the equivalent of the Grammys in Nigeria.

You arent in the wrong for lifting the sources from the article but thats my point virtually all sources given in the article by editor who created the page are dead links, how are we then to establish notability? for all we know they could be made-up, its not a hard thing to do. I suspect the article's creator is involved in heavy undisclosed paid editing, thats why he keeps creating pages for non-notable persons and companies.Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nikki Laoye is a renowned Nigerian singer, she has not only won the Headies The Headies 2013, she also won the African Union organized All Africa Music Awards, which was reported here [1] and here [2] The singer has also won the African Gospel Music Awards [3], which is another notable African Award. Her humanitarian works have been reported severally on notable publications like here [4], here [5] and here [6]. Her notability, really should not be in doubt here at all. She qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO. Furthermore there are several notable sources that mention the subject. It is wrong to state that only one notable source mentions Nikki Laoye in passing. It is almost laughable, especially if you are a Nigerian or knowledgeable about Nigerian musicians. Here are some other notable sources that indicate the notability of the subject: National Encomium [7], The Nation Newspapers [8], Vanguard Newspaper [9], Daily Independent [10], The Nation Newspaper [11] and several others. It is possible, that the dead links observed are expired pages from Nigerian newspapers who may have run out of bandwidth on their sites.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Celestina007 you are giving me too much credit, to insinuate that I created dead links or that I am heavily involved in paid activity. The references used were there as at the time the article was created in 2014, and the article has been reviewed severally. I don't make it a habit of crosschecking references monthly to know if the links have become dead or not. In any case to the subject at hand, the artiste meets WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria, because she has won several notable Nigerian and African awards, including the Headies, Afrima, NMVA, AGMA and has nominations at the AFRIMMA and NEA, her songs have charted in notable Nigerian charts and she has been reported about in numerous notable, reliable Nigerian media outlets, and not just trivial mentions. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. If there is any concern, it should be to find updated references to authenticate the article, or to remove unverifiable claims, not brandish it as paid or the subject as lacking in notability. Pastorflex (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - This is such a substantial article, with such a large number of apparently perfectly acceptable sources (without even conducting searches) that this nomination on it's face is at best a gross misunderstanding of policy. If links are dead, then repair them. If sources need updated, WP:FIXIT. GMG ^talk 15:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have worked to have it removed in the past but the overwhelming number of reliable sources in the article (and elsewhere) make it clear that the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Dead links are not a reason to argue for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An WP:SPI has been opened as Onyeuwaoma2000 is suspected of being a sockpuppet of Pastorflex which is a gross violation of our polices governing the productivity of the wikipedian environment. Pending the result of this, perhaps the Checkuser Bbb23 could be so kind as to weigh in on this, for the sake of this AFD.Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bbb23 has not been active in nearly two months. GMG ^talk 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to suggest to us one for the sake of this AFD, i cant have sock puppets distrupting this process.Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not no, because I don't see any compelling reason to believe that they are sock puppets, and no reason to bother anyone individually. GMG ^talk 20:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems as though you are hell bent on giving me more credit than I deserve Celestina007, I have been an editor on wikipedia for over 10 years, and I have made several credible and useful contributions to articles and even created a few myself, which I am proud of, have they all been perfect? No, but I have welcomed contributions and criticisms where necessary, and had to improve articles and resubmit in order to meet the guidelines, in these 10 years I have done this, I have never been accused of sockpuppeting or any of the other sly accusations you have made, instead of sticking to the notability of the subject or trying to ensure that the article is written in an encyclopedic manner. You are welcome to investigate, as I am rest assured that I have done nothing wrong or violated any policies.Pastorflex (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Berean Hunter i suspect the editor Onyeuwaoma2000 to be a sock of Pastorflex, they both have !voted a keep on this AFD, the former hardly ever edits and when he/she does they work primarily on articles already created by Pastorflex. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to weigh in on this for us in order to ensure a clean AFD free of sockpuppetry.Celestina007 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this sort of Afd nomination is even taken seriously is enough to lose faith in this entire Wikipedia project. An article with huge amounts of sources is nominated and presumably could be deleted depending on whether or not certain people show up to the process. I want to ask the nominator: Did you bring up the issues you had with the article on the talk page? Did you attempt to resolve these problems yourself? Did you do ANYTHING other than rush this article to AFD?Egaoblai (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fault your reasoning sir. I have been in that shoes, and I completely lost faith in the project then. Just a few days ago, this same Celestina initiated several several oblivious AFDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobechi_Nneji, there are still many others. This is besides the many lame maintenance templates/tags from her since she joined Wikipedia. The last time I went real hard on her, she reported me to one experienced editor who said it was justifiable for her to take me to ANI, so that I will get blocked again. The regrettable thing was that she didn't mention anything wrong in all that Celestina did during the buildup to that event. It is very painful when dedicated editors are punished for reacting to situations that was originally for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I am the type of editor that will never take my issues to another editors talkpage. I resolve everything myself, and in the open. And editors like Celestina take advantage of this, by always seeking to help of people against me. Everything about me here is open, never sent a private message to anyone regarding any issue here. The only thing still keeping me here is that Wikipedia provides a relevant platform for keeping accurate records. Which is a problem for Africans. Also, there are some very nice editors here, who provide an holistic view of things before taking decisions. If she had gone to ANI, I wouldn't be surprised if they blocked me, and saw nothing wrong in all she was doing, because she was NICELY persistently ignorant. And this will encourage her never to show any sign of remorse. My experience here have deeply changed the way I interact with editors.

The above was the main reason why I didn't give a rationale for my keep vote, if I had done that, she would have disagreed with a reply filled with so much naivety and bad faith. And I would have given it back to her very hard, irrespective of the repercussions. I actually avoided a retrogressive state with no rationale. Darreg (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's be clear on the issue here, the subject of the matter is to determine if the subject of the article is notable enough and meets both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, there are numerous sources that indicate that the subject does meet these criteria. You should not nominate an article for deletion when you have not attempted to resolve them, simply because you have found some dead links? I am trying to ignore the claims that I am a sock puppet, but it is very hard to ignore. I joined Wikipedia 3 months ago, and I have a life outside Wikipedia, so I am sorry if I do not edit enough for someone's liking. The nominator should be trying to negate the issues raised and stop casting aspersions on people. the subject has numerous verifiable sources, dead links are not a reason for deletion.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Strange that an article like this would be nominated. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2017 (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.