Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clintianoo
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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Clintianoo
[edit ][Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Clintianoo (edit | 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 )
A WP:PROMO biography for a TikToker. The sources do not support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Quick analysis:
- Unbylined promo/churnalism recapping things he says in his own videos and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, this appears to be promo or paid placement w/r/t a biography.
- WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in other sources, one of them also unbylined: [5], [6].
- Finally, one source (InfoMediaNG) my network won't let me open because the site's security is compromised -- not likely to be a reliable and robust source.
Didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
(削除) Delete. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) (削除ここまで)Sock strike. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]- @TheOilSpillExpert can you explain why you chose delete? I believe your vote should be constructive. Opyquad (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Dclemens1971 Thank you for your constructive feedback. However, I addressed the issues you raised when the page was initially moved (by you) to draft status, and I ensured that all guidelines were strictly followed before moving it back to the Mainspace. Two, I have previously worked on pages that required more references, and I believe this is one of those pages that can be improved over time. BYLINE: The issue of whether an article is bylined or not should not be attributed to the writer since contributors on Wikipedia are volunteers, who are trying to make 'free knowledge' something of value to everyone who consumes information on this platform. Regarding the source InfomediaNG, I did not encounter any security issues while using it here. Moreover, I have seen other reliable platforms referencing the site, particularly for biographies and fact-checking-related content. Could it be that certain pages are restricted in your country? Opyquad (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Opyquad: All guidelines were not strictly followed, clearly. Regarding unbylined content, please review discussions at WP:RSN. News organizations in Nigeria are considered by many editors to publish promotional content that does not meet the bar of WP:RS, and content without bylines is particularly likely to be this kind of promotional material. Beyond that, the content is just churnalism based on recycling Clintianoo's social media statements into articles, which means the material is not independent since it's basically the subject's own words. I can't view InfoMediaNG since my network indicates the site hosts malicious malware and I have no desire to invite that onto my computer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Dclemens1971 I have done my best to ensure that the article adds value to Wikipedia’s goals. No emotions involved! First, I do not agree with the proposition being advanced at WP:RSN that Nigerian newspapers should be "formally" deprecated. That is too harsh of a recommendation. In fact, some newspapers in Nigeria are dedicated to combating fake news and fact-checking claims made by other media outlets. The fact that some media organizations have published unverified claims should not be enough to categorize all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable.
- I have cited some of these newspapers in other articles I have published (here, here, and here ), and there were no issues raised regarding the authenticity of the sources. My approach has always been to conduct thorough research on my subjects and write about them, especially when they are of public interest and have made significant impacts in their respective fields.
- I would encourage you to approach this matter with an open mind while applying the guidelines without any preconceived bias that Nigerian newspapers are inherently unreliable. As for the other source—InfomediaNG—it may be related to your system’s configuration, such as a firewall mistakenly flagging the site as a false positive. I have no such issue here.
- While it's understandable that some sources might be flagged due to instances of misinformation or promotional tone, it would be unfair to apply a blanket deprecation without assessing individual publications on a case-by-case basis. A balanced approach that recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses of various media outlets would better serve Wikipedia’s objective of providing accurate and well-rounded information. Encouraging editors to critically evaluate sources rather than outright dismissing them seems like a more constructive path forward.
- Thank you for your time. Opyquad (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Opyquad I don't agree with the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian sources either, but I do believe that given the problems identified, they must be carefully evaluated and that promotional or tabloid-type articles like the ones used in this article are inappropriate to establish notability. And are you using ChatGPT or another AI platform to write your responses? GPTZero gives your fourth paragraph a 100% probability of being AI-generated. Please use your own words to participate in discussions here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Dclemens1971 AI cannot be relevant to my response here. To the main issue, similar sources have been cited in a similar page for Tiktok influencer in Nigeria. Opyquad (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- It's relevant in that AfD discussions are based on strength of argument, not on !votes. Because AIs have literally never proven themselves able to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to sources, AI-generated responses will usually be discounted by closers seeking to weigh the strength of argument. (I share this not for purpose of this argument but only for your own benefit as a Wikipedia editor and this will be my last word on the subject.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Dclemens1971 And I don't think an editor that generates their responses using AI is qualified to be a Wikipedia editor. Opyquad (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- It's relevant in that AfD discussions are based on strength of argument, not on !votes. Because AIs have literally never proven themselves able to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to sources, AI-generated responses will usually be discounted by closers seeking to weigh the strength of argument. (I share this not for purpose of this argument but only for your own benefit as a Wikipedia editor and this will be my last word on the subject.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Dclemens1971 AI cannot be relevant to my response here. To the main issue, similar sources have been cited in a similar page for Tiktok influencer in Nigeria. Opyquad (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Opyquad I don't agree with the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian sources either, but I do believe that given the problems identified, they must be carefully evaluated and that promotional or tabloid-type articles like the ones used in this article are inappropriate to establish notability. And are you using ChatGPT or another AI platform to write your responses? GPTZero gives your fourth paragraph a 100% probability of being AI-generated. Please use your own words to participate in discussions here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Opyquad: All guidelines were not strictly followed, clearly. Regarding unbylined content, please review discussions at WP:RSN. News organizations in Nigeria are considered by many editors to publish promotional content that does not meet the bar of WP:RS, and content without bylines is particularly likely to be this kind of promotional material. Beyond that, the content is just churnalism based on recycling Clintianoo's social media statements into articles, which means the material is not independent since it's basically the subject's own words. I can't view InfoMediaNG since my network indicates the site hosts malicious malware and I have no desire to invite that onto my computer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delete - All of the main sources cited are WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA or barely mention him. L A 14:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक I think you should read the article we're discussing for deletion before drawing your conclusions. A promotional piece is unlikely to address the controversies surrounding the subject. Let’s review the page with an open mind while adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines. It is unfair to delete a page simply because the sources are from Nigeria. Where else are editors in Nigeria expected to obtain sources if biases against Nigerian media persist? Opyquad (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delete: Can’t find a bit of notability here. Fails WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delete: does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Mamani1990 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (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.