Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realjjfrosh

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. ✗plicit 11:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Realjjfrosh

[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)

Does not pass WP:GNG, non-notable, promotional. Article has been draftified [1] and declined by the AfC process [2][3][4][5][6] prior for a lack of reliable sources and promotional tone, both issues are still present. Unable to find significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. All sources found, including those used in the article currently, appear to be promotional paid reporting as described at WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The tone of this article is also similarly promotional. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Nigeria. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) through multiple reliable, independent, and national news sources that are not trivial mentions. These include:

These are not self-published or trivial mentions. The article can always be improved, but the notability bar is met.

Realjjfrosh (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK

Comment by subject:

Thank you for the feedback. While some editors suspect the coverage might be paid, the sources used in the article — *Punch, Guardian, ThisDay, Vanguard, The Nation, and Daily Trust* — are all major, independent Nigerian newspapers. The article is written in a neutral tone and avoids promotional language. None of the sources are labeled as sponsored or advertorial.

It’s worth noting that an editor previously reviewed the article and declined the speedy deletion nomination, recognizing that the sources present make a credible claim of importance.

I’m open to improvements and edits, but I believe the subject passes the general notability guideline based on national media coverage. — Realjjfrosh (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought about speedying this. Although the sources are proper news outlets, the articles are anonymous and basically press releases or reviews Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried to speedy it under A7 but it was declined. Additionally suspecting something's up with one account creating the draft article and another moving it to mainspace. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admitted sockpupperty, see the open SPI. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, thanks for filing. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Lots of WP:COI too, as mentioned above. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thank you for your input. I understand concerns around WP:GNG and COI. However, I want to clarify that I’m participating openly using my main account. The article relies on independent coverage from national newspapers like Punch, Guardian, Vanguard, The Nation, and ThisDay, which are not self-published or PR blogs. The sources are about the subject, not just trivial mentions. The article has also been reviewed before, and I’m open to neutral improvements. I believe the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources already cited. Thank you. Realjjfrosh (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You used an undisclosed alternative account, which is now blocked [7], to attempt to cast votes twice in this discussion [8][9]. Your characterization of open participation is not entirely accurate and COI concerns are well founded. Also stop generating replies with an LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Of the provided references, all but the Punch item are over-the-top effusive promotional articles that are worse than most press releases. When looking for more sources, I can find only more of these ridiculous puff pieces. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I respectfully disagree with the claim that the coverage is promotional or lacks reliability. Outlets like Guardian Nigeria, ThisDay Live, The Nation, and Daily Trust are established national newspapers with independent editorial teams. None of the articles are tagged as sponsored or paid content, and each discusses different aspects of my rise as a content creator and digital strategist.

I understand the concerns about tone, and I’m open to neutralizing any promotional phrasing in the article. But based on WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, I believe the article meets notability through significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Realjjfrosh (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Bastard Helper From Hell is here because of Realjjfrosh's attempt to canvass. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

https://punchng.com/tiktok-star-realjjfrosh-plans-social-platform-for-creators/?amp seems OK.
We can't use https://guardian.ng/features/realjjfrosh-viral-tiktok-creator-pioneering-africas-social-media-growth/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're leery of role bylines because they are consistently used to launder literal fake news. And don't tell me "it's Nigerian media"; Nigeria!Guardian usually credits its journalists properly.)
We can't use https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/04/01/realjjfrosh-the-digital-strategist-redefining-social-media-influence-in-africa/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
We can't use https://thenationonlineng.net/how-realjjfrosh-nigerian-internet-sensation-redefines-content-creation-across-africa/amp/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?

You have one usable source. That's not enough for an article on any subject, and outright fatal on a (auto)biography. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts about punchng, the supposed author of that article is tremendously productive. On 2 April in addition to Realjjfrosh they published 7 other articles [10][11][12][13][14][15][16], and that's an average day for them. Punchng does offer promoted/branded/native ads: pg.14,16,18 of [17], pg 18 lists a non-standard rate for something they call "Advertorial Creation". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt here, partly because it's the only one of these four sources that actually credits an author. (Note I said "seems OK", not "is OK".) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify that the coverage from Punch, Guardian, ThisDay, The Nation, and others wasn’t paid for. I’ve had viral trends on TikTok like “1000 views 2 likes” that were picked up in those stories. They may sound promotional because they describe the trends and the impact, but that’s how entertainment stories are usually written.

I’m open to improving the article tone if needed, but the coverage is real, from national outlets, and documents the influence of my work. Realjjfrosh (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Realjjfrosh: Regardless of whether or not you paid for them, the fact they're written under role bylines implies, at a bare minimum, that the outlet either had no input or no confidence whatsoever in the content or its author. Neither of those is a good look. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about role bylines, but these articles were not paid for or submitted by me. They were published by major national news outlets in Nigeria. I’m open to improving the article if needed. Realjjfrosh (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Realjjfrosh: Which means jack. We do not judge a source solely by the outlet it is in; we have to assess the content of the source as well, and the fact those three are all written under role bylines is an indictment of that content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I didn’t pay for those features, and I also don’t control how the outlets choose to format their bylines. The content was independently written to cover my work, especially the viral TikTok trends I started. But I respect the review process and your observations. Realjjfrosh (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: This article is supported by multiple reliable and independent Nigerian news sources—*Punch*, *Guardian Nigeria*, and *Vanguard*. The coverage is not trivial and reflects the subject’s notability in the African digital creator space. I kindly request reconsideration before closure. Thank you. Realjjfrosh (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trotting this line out repeatedly like it means anything, and in spite of the source analysis above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the — hammer — has *prescribed* for this “nail”.

They even left the same model-made response to my warning about Special:PermanentLink/1298570814#LLM use on talk pages. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors please note the user who created this article has the same user name as the article it’s self this might be a conflict of interest. Contents2350 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 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.