Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LAGbook

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. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAGbook[edit]

LAGbook (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)

An original version of this article was prodded in April 2013 after it was shown that the news sources it was based on were either primary-source interviews, or reprints of self-aggrandising press releases which the PR company later retracted. It came back last week using some of the same sources, and one new one: the 2013 textbook Using Social Media for Global Security, which mentions LAGbook in a list of social networking sites in Appendix A1, openly crediting Wikipedia's List of social networking websites article as its source for the list. Neither this nor its press releases confer any notability. McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article has a long history of problems. Lagbook was deleted twice in February 2012 as unambiguous advertising. The article was recreated as LAGbook and had significant issues with sourcing. Particularly troubling was the company's tendency to make claims that were reprinted in the Nigerian media but were either grossly inflated or taken out of context or untrue. My favorite examples: the company claimed to have partnered with Dropbox when, if you read what they were claiming to have done carefully, it sounded like they had just plunked down $100 on Dropbox for Teams and called that a partnership. Similarly, the article claimed that Lagbook had been covered by TechCrunch, but when you read the TechCrunch article it was about a completely different company, GROUPS.PS, which makes a white-label social networking service and only briefly mentioned Lagbook as one of the users of that service. There were other WP:REDFLAGs, at the time I first CSD'd Lagbook, the company's logo was identical to Facebook's except that it was green instead of blue and used a lowercase l instead of a lowercase f. So I was not at all surprised when the creators of Lagbook put the website for sale and then the purchaser of Lagbook came forward and said that the founders were making false claims about the business and hijacking the purchaser's social media accounts. You can read the details at Talk:LAGbook. The sources that we have are primarily Nigerian media (The Vanguard and the National Mirror). Given that these sources have printed inaccurate claims from the Lagbook founders without doing any kind of independent research, I think they need to be discounted as unreliable. What that leaves us with is a website that sold for $10,000[1], ranked around 18,000 on Alexa at its best and is now defunct. I don't see any notability here but I am worried that the founders are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for dishonest self-promotion. GabrielF (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
with all due respect, i think you are letting personal feelings could your judgement.
first of all, you are the user who investigated to see is user:socialnerd was a sockpuppet of these "evil twins". your investigation cleared the user.
second, whatever the merits of the previous incarnations of this article (which i am unable to access or assess, not being an admin, the current article is a DE MINIMUS description of the website, which barely mentions the brothers at all.
& whatever the merits of the bio-article about the brothers, there is ample evidence in secondary sources (such as all the news articles that have been arbitrarily "disqualified") to justify an article about the site as an african internet company.
if the validity of the facts AS REPORTED IN THE NEWS MEDIA are in dispute, then by all means, let the opposing sources be included as well. but right now, all i see is a hysterical determination, mainly by the 2 users i have mentioned, to "extirpate" the article "at all costs", & facts, & wiki rules & policies be damned. Lx 121 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, please follow WP:FOC
Sources that are not reliable shouldn't be used as references. Nor should we have articles on non-notable entities, especially when the articles appear to be a means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...& now you have "invoked" wp:foc in at least 3 or 4 different places. you can find my response on that point burther down in this discussion.
AS REGARDS SOURCES: you have arbitrarily & repeatedly disqualified numerous articles which were pubished in major african online "newspapers".
AS REGARDS NOTABILITY: disregarding all the content you have removed from the article previously, the website claims a userbase of ~1 million people, which, in terms of "home-grown" sub-saharan african social networking internet companies, makes them a decent-sized "indie" player. the claimed userbase size was reported in serveral of those african newspaper articles that you have "disqualified". you may disagree with the estimate, but that does not give you the right to "decide" those newspaper are invalid sources, & unless you can provide some equally credible source disputing the number, or offering an alternative number, then you are not in a good position to simply "disappear" the info. accurate or not, these stories ran in major news media outlets, & if you really want to "finesse" the point, then you are free to adjust the relevant text to say that "it was reported in ...etc.".
finally, as regards the "evil twins" that seem to be the driving motivation behind this dedicated attempt to remove any useful content from this particular article, THEY ARE BARELY MENTIONED. it's not a bio-article about them, it's not even a wp:promo for the company. the article (what's left of it, is a "de minimus" barebones description of the website, the type of service it provides/provided, & the namechange, as added my me (which, again, you ARBITRARILY REMOVED, because apparently the national mirror (nigerian "paper", the vangardngr (nigerian news media outlet), otekbits.com (internet/tech news), & techzulu.com (african tech/internet business news) are ALL COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE SOURCES for reporting basic facts about the existence of an african social networking website.
i really am gone now, back in 6-12-24 hours. 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Your claim about the checkuser is not accurate. I requested a checkuser for Socialnerd. He was not "cleared", the clerk denied the request to investigate. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidieberenwaogu/Archive.
More importantly, there is plenty of policy to support editors looking at cited sources in order to determine whether they are reliable. We do not need to accept as automatically reliable everything published in every newspaper around the world. You've opposed the removal of several articles. Two of them are simple interviews with almost no editorial contribution from the newspaper itself: [2][3]. In the National Mirror article published in December, the founders claim a valuation of $50,000 and that they would never sell the website, two months later they sold the website for $10,000. Two others articles are blogs. Finally, the Guardian Nigeria article claims that they "entered into partnership with Versamel Limited", the purchaser, who has verified his current control of the domain name, claims that the deal was a simple acquisition and that no such partnership exists. I agree with the assessment of another editor that the Guardian Nigeria article is a warmed-over press release. They tell the same origin story of the brothers founding the website to settle a bet over a girl's major and they quote the founders without doing any independent research. This isn't a case where a highly-reliable source says one thing but the article subject says another (a la the recent Philip Roth incident). We don't need to insist that the article subject provide their own secondary sources so that we can present both sides of the story because the sources that exist right now just don't stand up to scrutiny. GabrielF (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chidi_and_Chika_Nwaogu provides a good summary of the problems with previous versions of this and related articles, and the complete lack of sources both independent and reliable. Note that it's clear that some information in the press releases and statements to the press is fraudulent. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
& therefore you feel this justifies your "disqualifying" MAJOR african new media as sources for this article? based on your "gut feeling"? Lx 121 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
with all due respect, that arguement would have a lot more weight, if you hadn't spent so much time removing content from the article, arbitrarily dismissing valid sources, & abusing the good faith of another, much less-experienced user. Lx 121 (talk)
I've no idea what you're referring to, and think this is getting far off track of any useful discussion on this comment. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you have "no idea" of the ~1 dozen edits you made to the article, stripping out content & sources EVERY TIME.
you have "no idea" of the dozens of sources provided by user:socialnerd & by me, all of which you have arbitrarily rejected as "invalid".
you have "no idea" of how you rejected/blocked EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT by user:socialnerd to reach a compromise & edit constructively, & offered NOTHING in return.
Lx 121 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'STRONG KEEP -- users McGeddon & Ronz have been on a "mission" to destroy this article; systematically stripping out information & references, as shown in the page history [4].
apparently this began as a dispute over a bio-article written by/about the founders of the site, which expanded to a dispute over the article about the site, & then became a dispute with user:Socialnerd, whom they accused of coi & suspected of being a sockpuppet; said user was CLEARED.
in the course of all this "action" a single-interest user:Shidan appeared in the conversation. this person made accusations against the brothers, which would be unacceotable on ANY blp article, & for which he did not provide adequate proof/sourcing.
talk page is here [5]
however the 2 above-mentioned users mcgeddon & ronz have apparently decided to accept this persons "original reasearch" @ face value, & the two have continued to undermine every attempt to improve the article, & effectively driven away user socialnerd.
the users have "disqualified" a LONG list of sources as "invalid", for spurious reasons. they have claimed that every article written about the company is based on "retracted press releases", without providing concrete evidence to support this assertion.
as a side-point, this article would also appear to have been "improperly" prodded, according to the rules disqualifying articles with any history of dispute from prod nominations.
below is a list of the "not reliable" sources

"not reliable sources"[edit]

additionally, they have disqualified MANY other sources, on the talk page, out-of-hand.
text of (many of) the "invalid sources" mentioned on the talk page is c&p below
Material copied from article talk page discussions

_____________

12 Does this article actually contain independent and reliable sources?

Per the discussions above, lets look at the sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. It contains sources from Vanguard, The Guardian, National Mirror, Techcrunch. And all these are independent and reliable sources. I make sure that all I write is cited to a valid source, and I do not record anything that hasn't been reported from a neutral source outside LAGbook. The claims being made by the other party could be an aftermath of a little brawl between the partied involved. I am not here to solve personal problems but to document reported information. Writing on the talk page will not serve as evidence to work on but a creation of un-useful notice that will yield no significant result. I deploy the other party to report his claims on a reliable and independent source, and I will work with it just like as seen on Youtube's Wikipedia page:

"According to a story that has often been repeated in the media, Hurley and Chen developed the idea for YouTube during the early months of 2005, after they had experienced difficulty sharing videos that had been shot at a dinner party at Chen's apartment in San Francisco. Karim did not attend the party and denied that it had occurred, while Chen commented that the idea that YouTube was founded after a dinner party "was probably very strengthened by marketing ideas around creating a story that was very digestible"

A story was reported in the media about the birth of Youtube but one of the founders said it didn't happened and it may be a story just to market the idea and which the public will easily accept. If the new party documents his claims, it will be written here that he said this and this, and this and this didn't happen, and this and this is what happened.

So if it is written on a reliable source, it's along with Wikipedia's guideline to document it on this Wikipedia page,; good and bad, wikipedia is not a place to glorify anyone, but to report things as seen on reliable internet sources. Please, Shidan, share a link to a reliable source that documents your claims. Thanks. --Socialnerd (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) What it looks like to me is that these sources are all warmed-over press releases where no one actually investigated the claims in the press releases. If there is an exception, all we need to do is find it. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Here are articles independent and unculled from any pr:

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/ http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486 http://techzulu.com/interview-with-founderslagbooks-social-network-for-meeting-new-people/ http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/ http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html http://www.werunthings.net/in-conversations-onyeka-nwelue-to-chika-and-chidi-nwaogu/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/09/grou-ps-lets-you-create-your-own-private-facebook/ http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/vacancy/21564-lagbook-co-recruiting-in-9-positions

All these are articles from reliable sources like Vanguard, National Mirror, Techcrunch, Business Day to name a few. And they are not leaning on any pr. Please, I will deploy you to look closely here. This is a simple issue, if the other party feels what is reported widely and by multiple sources is false, he has to make a report that will be documented on a valid and reliable media portal about his claims so that it will be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for personal feelings or claims, but for documented and reported information.Socialnerd (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Let's look at them one by one: --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/ - ADESILE, TOSIN (May 24, 2012). "UNILAG twins host over 71,000 users on Lagbook". Vanguard. The author is from the univerisity. It just looks like an annoucement with mostly quotes from the twins. I'd say that fits in the category of a press release. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC) That's an erroneous way to describe a press release. It could be a result from an interview section, and was reported in form of a story. This article was written by TOSIN ADESILE (a possible student writer/correspondent/reporter for the newspaper) and not part of the company. The first three paragraphs are words from the writer, while the last two are quotes, so I differ on the idea that it leans totally on words from the founders. Any article that doesn't have words from the person in question looks like something not to trust, and you know this. Articles I read on papers often like quoting the people in question for authenticity and credibility. --Socialnerd (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486 - IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. Looks like a puff-piece, obviously based upon press releases given how it highlights partnerships. If the concerns discussed above are true, it's likely based upon fraudulent press releases. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I do not understand what you are driving at. It is not our job to say if a source is saying the truth or not, because we may end up making the wrong conclusions. Wikipedia is not a place for reporting or documenting personal opinions and research, or making personal assumptions/opinions/findings influence the way things are being documented. It is a neutral point of view system, and this doesn't look neutral if our own feelings/manner of understanding are put into play.--Socialnerd (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It is our job to determine if the sources we use are reliable or not, if they are independent or not, or otherwise meet relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://techzulu.com/interview-with-founderslagbooks-social-network-for-meeting-new-people/ - Wakoba, Sam (September 4, 2012). "Africa’s Largest and Fastest Growing Social Network : Interview with LAGbook’s Chidi Nwaogu". TechZulu. An interview. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Citing an interview is not against wikipedia's policy/guidelines for citing sources. Or is it? --Socialnerd (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It's not an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/ - Gotevbe, Victor (Sep 01, 2012). "Let your dreams run wild – Nwaogu twins". Vanguard. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html - OFOELUE, ONUKWUBE (Jul 12, 2012). "We sold our laptops to build LAGbook –Twins". National Mirror. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.werunthings.net/in-conversations-onyeka-nwelue-to-chika-and-chidi-nwaogu/ - "In Conversations: Onyeka Nwelue talks to Chika and Chidi Nwaogu". WeRunThings. Retrieved 2013-02-13. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/09/grou-ps-lets-you-create-your-own-private-facebook/ - PEREZ, SARAH (August 9, 2011). "GROU.PS Lets You Create Your Own Private Facebook". TechCrunch. Briefly mentions LAGbook. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/vacancy/21564-lagbook-co-recruiting-in-9-positions - JOBS, BUSINESS (May 17, 2011). "Lagbook Co. Recruiting in 9 Positions". Business Day. An advertisement. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We can continue to go through the references one by one, but I'm thinking it a waste of time at this point and we should consider both articles for deletion. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

13 References based upon removed press releases

Starting a list of references based upon retracted press releases. Anyone object to them being immediately removed along with the corresponding content? --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nigeria’s LAGbook Reaches One Million Registered Members & Launches ‘Social Apps’". TechMoran. March 28, 2013. "Ghana Makes Up Top Ten Registered Users on LAGbook as LAGbook Launches 'Social Apps'". Cranchon. March 29, 2013. "LAGbook Partners With Nintag". IQ4News. March 17, 2013. "LAGbook Partners With Nintag To Improve Search Results". TechMoran. March 15, 2013. "Approaching the 1miilion mark, LAGbook Partners With Nintag To Improve Search Results". Cranchon. March 16, 2013.

I've gone ahead and removed them along with any info entirely dependent upon them. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing these are as well. Anyone want to verify? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. "LAGbook Raises $10,000 In First Round For African Expansion". TechMoran. February 7, 2013. Text " To Launch Jamaa.com & Befondit.com " ignored (help) "LAGbook Joins UK Company Versamel Limited, Receives $10,000 Angel Investment". Cranchon. February 19, 2013. Yusuf, Adewale (January 22, 2013). "LAGbook Organizes One-Month Coding Marathon To Fix Privacy Concerns". OTEKBITS. IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. Ayemoba, Andrea (January 21, 2013). "Prominent African Social Network Increases User Privacy By Over 80%". Africa Business Communities. Yusuf, Adewale (February 5, 2012). "LAGbook Set To Launch Social Platform For Blogs". OTEKBITS. "Jamaa and Befondit To Be Launched by Africa's Largest Social Networking PLatform". Cranchon. February 19, 2013.

'oppose, what proof do you have that any (much less all) of these are "retracted press releases"? i haven't seen you provide ANYTHING. Lx 121 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

end of c&p
this matter has gotten completely out of hand, these users have abused the good faith of other editors, disregarded the rules for sources, & basically "run amok" to dismantle & eliminate the article, & apparently they feel completely justified in doing so.
i'm considering whether to make out a user report but at the moment i've had enough of this "drama" & am going to do some useful work elsewhere
Lx 121 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:FOC.
User:Shidan verified his relationship with the company that purchased LAGbook.
There were multiple concerns with the sources before Shidan joined the discussion.
Much of the information in the LAGbook press releases and public statements are inconsistent and contradictory.
Some of the information in the LAGbook press releases and public statements is grandiose to the point of being inaccurate, and some outright fraudulent.
The press releases were still available for inspection last I looked. Are they gone?
I fail to see any evidence offered that there exist sources both independent and reliable on the topic, much less that meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
again, for the upteenth time WHAT "EVIDENCE"!? i see user:sheridan on the lagbook talk page, i see him making lots of claims & accusations. i don't see any "evidence" that would be considered valid in an article, & i don't see any "evidence" that "prooves" his side of the story as regards anything relevant to the article-contents.
but, apparently, you regard this single-interest user as "more reliable", than half a dozen articles in major african "newspapers"?
i'm going to stop now, because i am so unhappy with how you & your friend have acted in your mistreatment of user:socialnerd & your arbitrary removal of perfectly valid media sources from the article. i shall return to this conversation, but after i've done something more constructive for a while. Lx 121 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is page to discuss the the deletion of LAGbook. I've tried to summarize the consensus from the talk page and other relevant discussions. What I'm not seeing here are any policy-based arguments supporting a "strong keep" viewpoint, nor opposition to the past consensus. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
your "consensus" amounted to you & user mcgeddon shutting down every attempt by user:socialnerd to edit constructively. much ranting by user:shidan, & a failed sockpuppet accusation against user:socialnerd.
if there was any previous deletion discussion for this article, it should be noted/included/accessible on the page here, but i don't see it?
Lx 121 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for keeping the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at those sources:
  • The techzulu.com article is an interview: this makes it a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and it looks like it might be a self-published group blog.
  • The otekbits.com article is a company blog entry that quotes and paraphrases a LAGbook blog entry by Chidi Nwaogu: this fails WP:SPS as a non-expert blog, and reheated press releases are not reliable sources.
  • The Vanguard NGR "UNILAG twins host over 71,000 users on Lagbook" article: this may be reliable, but is only five paragraphs.
  • The Vanguard NGR "Let your dreams run wild" article: this is another interview.
  • The National Mirror Online article: this is another interview.
  • The NGR Guardian News article: this paraphrases a February 2012 press release.
WP:WEBCRIT requires a site to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", excluding "media re-prints of press releases" and "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content". On these sources plus the copied-from-Wikipedia textbook appendix, the website does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
The retracted press releases are a concern (for what it's worth, the best evidence available to us is simply that press releases mentioned in last year's discussions have since been deleted for whatever reason), but a retracted press release is no better or worse than a fresh press release for sourcing purposes - Wikipedia should use neither. A press release being retracted is problematic for making it harder to check whether a given source was based on it, but I don't think we're rejecting any sources purely on the grounds that they might be based on a retracted press release. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So only the Vanguard UNILAG twins article is worth considering. I agree that it doesn't demonstrate notability. Details on this afd's talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. There are no reliable sources that are removed from the public relations campaigns for the site. The press and other information directly from LAGbook is not reliable, sometimes to the point of being outright fraudulent. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite the rather vehement defense, there seems to be no policy-based reason to keep this somewhat promotional article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (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/LAGbook&oldid=1070600115"