Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Obasi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Obasi[edit]

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

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

From here, Strong possible UPE article spamming on non-notable individuals who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them a before shows press releases, user generated sources, optimization of primary sources, pr sponsored post and unreliable sources which have their bylines as “Editor” which is indicative of an op-ed not attributed to any prominent author thus all are unreliable sources (pieces) The possible UPE editor has had their Autopatrol stripped, but now we need to do the hard work by cleaning up(deleting) their possible paid editing articles. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable and were all created by the UPE spammer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~CSD G5 See SPI Non notable UPE Spam. All fail WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable marketing people and businesspeople who have used advertorials to create a faux appearance of notability. Reeks of UPE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all North8000 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I think we'd delete these even if it were not UPE editing. I suggest a SNOW close. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Sources seem to consist of a lot of trivial coverage, press releases, profile pages and questionable sources/blogs which may only exist for promotional reasons. I agree with a SNOW close. ASUKITE 20:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non notable UPE Spam. All fail WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Chumpih. (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:ANYBIO they all lack significant coverage in multiple indepedent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adeaga Bukunmi. She appears to be a notable entertainer and at least deserves a separate AFD. pburka (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Pidgin, BBC Yoruba, and FabWoman all cover her by the name Kie Kie. TJMSmith (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - non-notable spam. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: procedural keep and nominate articles individually. Some may meet WP:SIGCOV. Obasi was covered in 2018, 2019, and 2020. TJMSmith (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and nominate separately. As TJMSmith noted, there is varying notability going on between these articles. Batch nominations don't allow for actual consideration of each article subject. I can only assume that anyone above who made blanket claims about lack of sourcing didn't bother to take the time to look for any whatsoever (WP:BEFORE), since there's significant coverage for several of the subjects, while others are lacking any meaningful coverage. Silver seren^C 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren an in-depth before was done alright, I mass nominated 6 articles in all and four have already been deleted. But if you can show me the sources that meet requirements which are outlined in GNG that show notability for any of the remainder I’d be happy to see them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources that TJMSmith presented up above? Also, sorry, but MER-C's actions were completely out of line and I'm tempted to go to ANI over this. Trying to use the G5's as an argument is completely inappropriate. Especially since G5 is a worthless CSD claim. Silver seren^C 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, feel free to, but I’m afraid you’be inundated with clarifications on how CSD G5's work. Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi” which Missvain already stated expressly should be deleted, now let us analyze the three sources TJSmith pointed to, this doesn’t meet in-depth SIGCOV thus doesn’t agree with the tenets of GNG that requires in-depth significant coverage. The second second source is pre packaged pr sponsored post. Their third and last source is indeed a fair piece but not only isn’t insufficient to establish notability SIGCOV still remains a problem, but a decent piece all the same, so in all we only have one semi good piece so as aforementioned remains insufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi”"

That is false. Please look at the above discussion again. TJMSmith replied to pburka with sources about Adeaga Bukunmi. Silver seren^C 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, wrong again, I analyzed the three sources that were pertaining to Victory Obasi, the other sources they provided which I’m yet to analyze are about Adeaga Bukunmi which has now been G5 Delete, which I taught you here as to how G5 works, which justifies MER-C's actions, so like I said you are wrong, please read thoroughly before replying Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Victory Obasi and keep others to be individually nominated - I did my due diligence and Victory does not merit inclusion due to failing WP:GNG. But, I agree with TJMSmith and User:Silver seren that the others should be examined as their own AfD nominations - individually. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Creator of all the articles listed in this AFD has now been blocked for being a suspected sock of the serial article spammer and LTA editor known as Ugbedeg. Celestina007 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with the notability of the subjects whatsoever. Silver seren^C 18:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which wasn’t what I implied, insinuated or stated. I’m pointing out how a G5 now becomes applicable, please read thoroughly before replying. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED: Rotimi Bankole, Adeaga Bukunmi, Tobechukwu Okigbo, Funso Aina per G5. MER-C 17:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consolidating some sources along with the ones TJMSmith found on Adeaga Bukunmi:

"Kie Kie : Don't Waste Your Time Trying to Be Somebody Else". This Day. October 23, 2021.
"Kie Kie On the NdaniTGIFShow". Ndani TV. September 18, 2020.
"Kie kie: Adeaga Bukunmi Ilori sọ bí Elẹ́dàá ṣe gbà fún un tó sọ ọ di eèyàn ńlá ní àwùjọ àwọn aláwàdà". BBC World Service. September 9, 2021.
Chigaemezu, Ernest (December 12, 2021). "Social Media Influencer Of The Week: Adeaga-Ilori Bukunmi (KieKie)". Connect Nigeria.
Agorye, Jessica (October 16, 2017). "Get Inspired by the Simple And Fun Ankara Designs of Lagos TV-Girl Adeaga Bukunmi's". Style Rave.

She has a fashion line, it seems, and won an award at the Lagos Fashion Awards. I'll have to see if I can dig that up. Silver seren^C 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Designer Q & A: KieKie Walks Us Through Her Journey As A Designer". Exquisite Magazine. September 10, 2020.

She also apparently was featured in Exquisite Magazine and appeared on the cover of the August issue. Silver seren^C 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closing admin should be aware that User:Luciapop (creating editor) has been sock blocked. Any remaining articles should be considered against that backgound. Some have already been deleted on that basis. The rules deprecate block avoidance and sock puppetry and do not reward them with articles. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you're really going in all the way on trying to use G5 as a deletion argument, how shameless. Silver seren^C 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, thus far you have called MER-C's action which are in accordance with policy worthless threatened them with ANI, and have used the word shameless to qualify the statements of Timtrent. Asides this very AFD, I have been polite enough to explain to you in two different places as to how G5’s work [1] [2] but you seem to continue to be rude, if you continue this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or continue to be uncivil to your co-colleagues which is one of the cornerstones of this collaborative, see 5P4 I would have to officially report this very breach of civility to relevant notice boards, look! if you can’t make an argument without being condescending, rude or uncivil, then please do not bother to make arguments at AFD's, please and please I implore you to be prudent with your choice of words. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding the sources found for Kiekie: BBC Pidgin: trivial mention (X). BBC Yoruba: non-SIGCOV (6 short sentences) summarizing a video interview of her (X). FabWoman: just a list of 10 biographical facts about her, no independent commentary or analysis (X). ThisDayLive: written by Kiekie (X). Ndani: talking about herself in a video (X). ConnectNigeria: maybe SIGCOV profile of her, but also reads extremely promotional (√?). StyleRave: non-trivial, but mostly non-encyclopedic blurb on her fashion (≈). Exquisite Magazine: interview (X). I could see her receiving better coverage that is more clearly independent, so she's potentially a keep. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your input @Silver seren, above is an example of how you may make an argument without name calling or being rude, @JoelleJay, the crux of the article's deletion is that it is G5 eligible as it was created in violation of an ban/block, the article creator should never have created the articles in the first place. Your analysis on the sources is quite impressive for someone who I presume is not an expert in with Nigerian sources, from your analysis above you see how they don’t meet GNG, which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, thus, a major GNG fail, I also note you claim to have seen other sources, if yes, then if you could point me to the sources which give her in-depth significant coverage and are independent of her id be happy to see them and analyze them for you after this AFD is closed. You can show me the sources on my TP and i’d happy to do a source analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina, I should have phrased my last sentence more carefully. I haven't looked for or found other sources for Kiekie, I just came to the conclusion that she probably has more and better coverage based on my assessment of the sources already mentioned in this discussion. I know the article has already been G5'd, but figured I would add to what others had said about Kiekie's notability in case anyone was thinking about recreating the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, First, I believe I should begin by thanking and appreciating your polite tone, yes it has been G5'ed and correctly so, you are correct, anyone but the banned editor evading a block can always recreate the article when the subject becomes notable. Infact I believe TonyBallioni was being too modest and kind when they undid their speedy close, as this whole AFD can be speedied under the grounds of G5. Celestina007 (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the use of G5 on the articles to which it has already been applied. This sort of thing is clearly what the G5 criterion is intended to deal with. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that your argument is that G5 supersedes any deletion discussion. Meaning that any G5 deleted articles can be undeleted as a draft and then reposted as a mainspace article without any changes whatsoever needing to be made and with the editor taking responsibility for the article. With no complications of there being prior deletion discussions in the way. Thank you. It makes things easier. Silver seren^C 01:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading things into my words that I did not put there and I think you're doing it deliberately. Reyk _YO! 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as article was created by a sock. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. If the sock had been discovered prior to the AfD, they'd all be gone through G5. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victory Obasi, I've cleaned it up and unorphaned it. I've added some new references which demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems ridiculous to me have mass-deleted pages simply because they were created by a sock but enough hot air has already been produced on that score and I'll only reply here to comments actually pertaining to the Obasi article. Mujinga (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd still delete Victory Obasi also. Utterly promotional article, with sources repeatingthe promotionalism . I don't think it's rescuable. As for the ongoing dispute about G5, I note that G5 does not prevent the re-creation of an article by a good faith editor, though I would normally avoid doing so unless there is very clear notability with excellent sources--and I would wait a good while before doing so . , My working definition of "very clear notability " is that it would leave an gap in the encyclopedia that would surprise an ordinary reader.- DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 12:30, 26 December 2021 (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.