Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunkunmi Oluwasina

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkunmi Oluwasina[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bunkunmi Oluwasina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy WP:GNG. She is also & actor & singer but falls short of both WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER. A before search shows 0 evidence of notability. This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor.Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — So you have provided us with three sources in this AFD
So let’s get to analyzing look at the table below
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/255388-top-five-yoruba-movie-stars-watch-2018.html No sponsored post No obviously not reliable as the source merely promotes the upcoming entertainers who are clearly not notable enough No Source doesn’t discuss subject of article with significant coverage she is discussed very briefly. ✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/371150-10-nollywood-starlets-to-watch-out-for-in-2020.html No sponsored post No The same as my rationale in the first source. No Just as the first source analyzed by same media above this article still doesn’t discuss her with in-depth significant coverage as required to satisfy WP:GNG as Subject isn’t the focus of the article but included in a list article ✘ No
http://www.citypeopleonline.com/30-hot-yoruba-young-actresses-to-watch-in-2020 No sponsored post No No Just like the aforementioned analyzed sources, here again we have a list of 30 “young hot actresses to watch out for in 2020”. giving us next to no significant coverage as required by WP:GNG ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Asides the faulty sources used throughout the article, coupled with the undisclosed Paid/COI editing occurring in the article itself, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact) & you also imply that they have enough google hits to qualify at the very least per BASIC. The problem is BASIC requires multiple reliable sources, the aforementioned sources are not reliable in this context as they all are literally PR sponsored. Furthermore on “winning awards”, the problem is winning an award in a non-notable category doesn’t count & furthermore even winning a “notable”” award doesn’t necessarily translate to automatic notability. An analogy would be me creating a Wikipedia article for myself as I have won a notable award for playing basketball whilst at college. Judging from what we have learnt thus far & our experience wouldn’t that be an uniformed bizarre action on my part? Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, you're even missing the point, the few sources I provided that you analyzed, reveals that she might be notable. Go through the current version of the article here. I believe you're not really following the extensive cleanup and major additions I did today on the article. Go through it and reply me, I'm waiting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Wikipedia, we're trying to keep notable articles and not necessarily nominating them for deletion for the fun of it. I don't really think that you performed a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this particular article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is a bit promotional, but the subject of the article is notable, we as New Page Reviewers shouldn't rush into nominating it for deletion, that's what cleanup is for. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nnadigoodluck, Could you at least read before replying me & not purposefully go off topic? The article isn’t blatantly promotional & never have I said so. The article in itself is not promotional but the problem is the sourcing, The ones in the article are not reliable. The three you just provided us with are blatant PR sponsored sources. & No I’m not missing any point, you mentioned three PR sponsored posts which automatically makes the sources unreliable, What am I missing here? & when has being listed in online sources(even reliable ones) that state “X People Are The People To Watch Out For in 2020”(any year) being a yardstick for notability? If anything it means they are up & coming, right? Or is there something blatantly glaring ongoing I’m not seeing? & What’s with the ref bombing? Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With this your comment here, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact), it reveals that you didn't even perform a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this article for deletion. The subject of our discussion has been nominated in 7 different notable awards, where she won three. You just added a UPE tag on the article that I've spent the whole day cleaning up and you're saying that you don't say that it's promotional. Just nominating an article for deletion doesn't qualify it for deletion instantly. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quit with the aspersions. A before was conducted, & all i saw & I’m still seeing is subject of article being included in list articles, PR sponsored posts, Mere announcements, brief mentions in trivial things & the lot. Furthermore, ref bombing the article with other mirror articles to create a facade/illusion of “ocean of sources” doesn’t do anything to prove she is notable per WP:GNG it’s indicative of the inverse like I said. Bring your best three sources to this AFD & let us analyze it. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the current state of the article and seeing notable awards that the subject of our discussion won, thus passing WP:ANYBIO, do you still own up to this statement that you made above, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact)? —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve told you winning an award or multiple awards doesn’t auto confer notability, especially for non relevant categories. When you are ready to bring your best three sources, give me a ping. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also, I don't think that the creator of the article User:Oluwaseun1111, created this article to receive payments or compensation, just like you said above This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor. Per the discussion I had with them on their talk page, I think they're trying to contribute to the project in good faith, but maybe creating poorly sourced articles. Let's not drive good faith editors away from the project, because we can't do all the work alone, we need more editors on the project, especially Nigerian editors like us. Nigerian topics is really lacking on Wikipedia and we need more hands and editors willing to stay on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion more about editors than AfD topic
your reverse psychology would undoubtedly affect the unassuming passer by editor. I may be poking at a beehive with nominating this article for AFD & won’t be surprised when the ((Keep)) army start popping up. But I beg you, can you just stay on topic? (sourcing) & not purposefully go off topic? But before we commence on discussing sourcing, what did you just say? That you had what discussion with whom? The creator of this article? this shabby, shady dubious looking one right here? I’ve been involved with nabbing Nigerian UPE editors & those involved in sockpuppetry too long to tell when something isn’t right, we both know no matter how much I try to show you this is a case of WP:TOOSOON you’d never be objective so let’s stay on topic & try to stop digressing. I’ve done a before & ive come up empty so please provide to this AFD three reliable sources per WP:GNG. I personally couldn’t find any. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do any WP:BEFORE search before you nominated this particular article for deletion. You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did? The mistake that you're making is thinking that every article nominated for deletion must be deleted. Cleanup is required in some cases, when the subject of the article is truly notable. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yet again you purposefully digress. Per your comments above “You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did?” The article was created on the 11th of July at exactly 14:44(2:44) as seen here & was nominated for deletion by me at exactly 17:16(5:16) as seen here which is almost 3 hours later so what are you talking about???? How is approximately a three hour difference “nominating an article almost immediately it was created” ? In any case I guess it’s safe to say we aren’t getting the three reliable sources we need to substantiate true notability. That’s fine, it’s non existent is why you cannot get them & without WP:RS, verifiability is impossible. Subject also has no WP:SIGCOV so how can we then ascertain notability? Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be the reason why we don't have too many Nigerian editors that wish to stay back on the project. Nominating every poorly written article for deletion is not the way forward. When the subject of an article is probably notable through a thoroughly WP:BEFORE search, cleanup is really required, I'll keep on telling you this, I don't think that you conducted any before search before nominating this article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t make this about me, rather make this about the sourcing & notability of the article. I’ve asked you more than once now to bring your three best sources to prove subject is notable but you always circumnavigate that. If my fighting UPE/COI editing amongst Nigerian editors would keep bad faith editors then fine by me. Now let us analyze something else, this time let’s analyze the awards she has won.
  • Yoruba Fast Rising Actress of the Year (The Yoruba movie industry isn’t one & the same as the Nigerian Nollywood movie industry, thus winning Yoruba Fast Rising Actress does nothing for WP:ANYBIO as it isn’t fantastic nor prestigious and at best is a nod at this being a case of WP:TOOSOON seeing as subject fails to satisfy WP:GNG.) Celestina007 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoruba Best Actress in Leading Role (Probably the only award worth considering but isn’t sufficient to demonstrate notability as winning awards like I said doesn’t confer automatic notability. Per WP:GNG, in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject is used to demonstrate notability.)
  • Best use of Nigerian Food in a Movie (Premier example of a blatant non notable category) Celestina007 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This your award analysis, including the ones about the sourcing is very funny, I just had a great laugh. I thought you said the subject of our discussion didn't win any award per this You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact). It's good that this discussion is finally going somewhere. A subject that was nominated in 7 different awards and won three wholly passes WP:ANYBIO, let me remind you that WP:ANYBIO says that article should be kept if the The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Your cheap attempt to defend this wrongful AfD nomination of yours is not really yielding any fruit, if you had performed a before search, we won't be here wasting our time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this AFD here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onyeka Nnadozie Eze you tried to use the same WP:ANYBIO defense for an article you created (UPE) but it was ultimately proved to be a flawed rationale. Look If you are ready to bring any three reliable sources that prove subject is notable do let me know & no! the real reason for the back & forth is editors engaging in UPE having a vested interest in ensuring this article is retained at all cost. We know it when we see it. That aside as said earlier stated all I seek are three reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG. The three you provided above have been analyzed & are very much flawed. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I truly understand your problem, you think that any editor that challenges you on an AfD has an interest on a particular topic. I'm really disappointed in you for thinking such. I'll keep on saying it, I don't think that you truly performed a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did perform a 'before' & No, I never think so(I only fight against Nigerian UPE/COI editors and the articles they create) If good faith editors come & !vote a keep I’d assume utmost good faith. So please for the umpteenth time are you providing to this AFD, any three reliable sources that prove subject of article is truly notable? As the first 3 you provided(that I have analyzed above) are clearly unreliable as they are blatant PR sponsored posts or are you going to keep on evading a very simple request? Thank you for your time I think I am done here for now. Celestina007 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Barkeep49 will have this to say last month about your inability to consistently assess sources accurately after you spent 6 months on his NPP school, while also noting that you're not fit for the NPP permissions, I don't think you're still qualified to analyze sources at this time. You're really making a mess of it, how can someone claiming they know what they're doing fail to perform a thorough WP:BEFORE search, before nominating an article for deletion and thus driving good faith editors away from the project, especially well meaning Nigerian editors. Now, I've to say that your actions are now getting more disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You even went to the extent of accusing a well established editor like Danidamiobi who has spent 5 years on the project of sockpuppetery and UPE related activities, per this SPI case. I have no other thing to say, but your recent activities is becoming more disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Classic deflection tactics by mudding the water, poisoning the well & attacking my character. Let’s stay on topic at hand here. Thank you. Furthermore @Nnadigoodluck, my knowledge on sourcing really greatly improved hence me getting the NPR flag & a view of my AFD log shows I definitely know what I’m doing, you on the other hand have been caught advertising your services on social media hence Yunshui taking away your Autopatrolled right. Hence I am justified to say you are a/anUPE editor. Thanks again.Celestina007 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your character on Wikipedia has nothing to write home about, your recent actions are very much disruptive on the project and you're forcing well meaning editors, especially Nigerian editors to exit the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quit with personal attacks. Celestina007 (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you had conducted a WP:BEFORE before nominating this article for deletion, we won't be here wasting our time. Stop driving away well meaning editors, especially Nigerians editors away from the project. Not every Nigerian editor is engaging in UPE related activities or having a COI with the articles they write about. We still have good and well meaning editors. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a good thing we are becoming petty about this. I don’t appreciate the mud slinging come from you & of course I myself have hit you hard which isn’t proper but if only you can provide me with three reliable sources we won’t be dragging this. How else can I request that you provide us with three reliable sources to substantiate nor prove their notability? That’s all I require & no I’m not driving away good faith editors, the only ones leaving are the ones who I nabbed engaging in UPE & have no other choice to leave since they clearly weren’t here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be telling me to provide you with three sources when Barkeep49 said that “It also makes writing the rest of this difficult. I do not think you are a good fit for the New Page Reviewer permission at this time. I think you have good instincts about notability. However, your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is not there.” You're not yet qualified to accurately access sources at this time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my knowledge on sourcing have greatly improved as my AFD log show. But if you continue to muddy the water & poison the well & aren’t going to provide us cogent three reliable sources for me to analyze i hereby rest my case & wait for community consensus. Furthermore like I said if my sourcing knowledge & analysis hadn’t significantly improved I won’t get the NPR flag but my exponential improvement was what eventually granted me that. Attack me all you want but your ineptitude at identifying reliable sources & inability to provide to this AFD reliable sources, it shows you have nothing to offer other than your attempt to assassinate my character is quite indicative of the obvious (non notability of subject of our discussion) & speaks volume of your person/character. Furthermore what do you intend to achieve by using my teacher’s (Barkeep49) constructive criticism against me? Which aided me a lot in my knowledge on sourcing as my AFD log easily shows. That’s classic poisoning the well. I hereby rest my case.Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't improved in assessing sources, it's very clear through this ongoing discussion. Your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is still not there. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I analyzed above shows my analyzing sourcing ability is very much apt. Point to me which analysis is wrong? You can’t, because I’m very much correct as all are blatant sponsored posts.Celestina007 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is not “very much apt”. Stop praising yourself for the hoax you did up there. Please, don't tell me that you spent a whole 6 months on NPP school learning nothing in general. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
quit with the personal attacks & try to stay on point. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep on saying it, your assessment of sources is equal to zero. For someone that has stayed a whole four years on the project, I really expect much better, but, instead, you're proving me wrong. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My AFD Log shows my veracity when it comes to sourcing, so like I said stop attacking me by using Barkeep49’s constructive criticism against me. My AFD Log is open for all to see. So Quit with the Personal attacks & provide us with three reliable sources that prove subject of article is notable if you can’t just say so, if you have a COI/or have been WP:PAID to ensure the article is retained at all cost(Per your usual advertising of your Wikipedia service on social as Yunshi once nabbed you & removed your Autopatrolled rights just endeavor to disclose it & quit badgering this AFD with your personal attacks against me. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that we can never get anywhere through this AfD discussion, but, I'll still tell you to stop driving good faith editors away from the project, especially good faith Nigerian editors, not everyone is PAID or has a COI with an article they create. And mind you, when someone is challenging your hoax AfD nomination, that doesn't mean they must have a COI with the subject. I thought you know better? Please, don't tell me that you've wasted your whole four years here on the project, learning nothing. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged to this discussion twice, I'm collapsing this discussion. Most of it is not about Oluwasina. If there are concerns about editor behavior take it up on their talk page or an appropriate conduct forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — It should be noted that subject of article is supposed to be an actress & singer but doesn’t fulfill any single criterion from WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be best if editors discussed whether or not the awards she has won gets her a pass via WP:ANYBIO #1. I think this is plausible. It might also be useful if User:Nnadigoodluck is interested in keeping the page that he looks for some Nigerian sources. If this person has won the Nigerian equivalent of an Oscar this shouldn't be difficult. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlessandroTiandelli333, thank you for your input. The AMVCA(of which subject of our article has never won) would be the African equivalent to the Oscars. My issue had always been with the sources used which are mostly unreliable as they are blatant sponsored posts. Subject at best possesses bare notability & this is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON it’s a shame myself & Nnadigoodluck were not civil in our discussion above, I also share responsibility in how our conversation degenerated in the manner in which it did. Celestina007 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you Celestina007. On 24 December 2019, Scope creep removed the awards you added to the Liz Anjorin article you created yourself as can be seen here, citing “non-notable awards”. You approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, saying “Hey do you think the Special Recoginntion Award by City People Entertainment Awards is not notable enough? Come on discuss with me”., they didn't answer you and on 17 January 2020, you reverted them as can be seen here. This is the same award the subject of our discussion has won which you yourself clarified that they're notable enough last year. How are we now going to take you by your words in this your dubious AfD nomination? Even though we are all aware that you spammed the Autopatrolled user rights by creating 25 articles only in December 2019, as can be seen here, just like you've been collecting other hats to oppress good faith new editors and boost your ego. What has happened since then, why haven't you created any new article since obtaining the user rights in January?? I could go on and on, but, let me stop here for now. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nnadigoodluck, Quit with the Personal attacks & aspersions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, Nnadigoodluck, it would be best for you to both step away from this AfD. Perhaps unwatch it. You've both stated your position and now it's time to let others comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, You couldn’t be more correct. I’d so & only make further replies or comments if they are going to be constructive ones coming from Nnadigoodluck or constructive inputs from third party colleagues like I replied @AlessandroTiandelli333 above. I should also say for all to observe that my last 3 comments have been constructive & neutral. I already have taken my share of responsibility for the bloodbath this has turn out to be. Furthermore I’ve only requested for three reliable sources be presented for analysis to this AFD as the first three he provided were unreliable sources but have gotten nothing from Nnadigoodluck other than vehement personal attacks. I have no vested interest(and have never had) in the creation nor deletion of this article or any other article hence I’m never afraid to do what is right. Thank you for the mediation captain. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I see passing mentions, I see some pretty dodgy sourcing. Can't say the same wrt third-party, in-depth secondary sources though. ——Serial 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines for various entertainer categories and above all WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bunkunmi_Oluwasina&oldid=968517292"