Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

[edit]

Shafik Quoraishee

[edit]
Shafik Quoraishee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no significant independent coverage or profiles in reliable media to satisfy WP:GNG. Shafik Quoraishee is mentioned in primary or self-published sources (personal website, LinkedIn, Medium) and event listings. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adebola Opaleye

[edit]
Adebola Opaleye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies, NEWSORGNIGERIA itself says that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies.. All of the cited sources are extremely promotional and it looks like, over the last week, Opaleye has paid to have these articles written. They all seem to have very similar content to each other as well. My own WP:BEFORE only yields other puff pieces. I don't think that we can consider someone notable unless they have significant coverage about them that is not promotional itself. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Keep The article meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources including *The Nation*, *Vanguard Nigeria*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, and *Independent*. These are mainstream national newspapers with editorial standards. Speculating that these stories are "paid for" undermines the presumption of good faith toward established media outlets and is not an acceptable basis for deletion. Wikipedia guidelines focus on the existence of reliable, independent coverage — which this article clearly has. The article has been rewritten for neutrality, includes inline citations, and is now linked from relevant articles such as Abeokuta. Sapeotyy (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are the sources so promotional and why do they contain exaggerated claims? For example, Tribune Online is promotional from start to finish and has statements like Because of this mentality, his work has transcended national boundaries. Readers on multiple continents have come to his writings thanks to their appearance in international media. Where exactly has his work featured in international media? All that seems to have happened is a few suspiciously similar promo pieces in Nigerian news sources of questionable reliability. See also Independent, which contains the false/exaggerated statement He is also a recipient of numerous awards from student and youth organizations both in Nigeria and across the diaspora. His work and leadership have earned him recognition as one of the shining lights of Nigeria abroad, and a distinguished youth ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. There are many more examples across the 6 'references'. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article meets the notability criteria under WP:GNG, supported by multiple reliable, independent sources including *The Nation*, *Vanguard*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, and *Independent*. These are recognized national outlets with editorial oversight. The article itself does not include the exaggerated or promotional statements cited by the nominator. Those claims appear only in the sources, not in the Wikipedia article, which has been carefully rewritten in neutral language and structured in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V. The subject's biographical facts — publishing under the name Dakingsman, founding DKMNGR, and being covered in national media — are verifiable and independently published. The existence of strong sourcing satisfies Wikipedia's content policies. Dismissing national news coverage simply because the tone of some articles is enthusiastic is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject has also been internally linked from multiple Wikipedia articles (e.g., Abeokuta), further reinforcing the page's integration into mainspace. -- Sapeotyy (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA? This states Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice called brown envelope journalism. Consequently, some editors suggest that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies. Do you have any examples of significant coverage outside of the promotional articles from Nigerian newspapers that we can use? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The use of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA to imply that all Nigerian journalism is unreliable or that coverage is automatically assumed to be paid for is concerning. While "brown envelope journalism" exists — as it does in many media ecosystems worldwide — it's a practice, not a blanket label. It should not be used to disqualify all Nigerian sources unless specific evidence exists that the coverage in question was paid or promotional in nature.
The article relies on major Nigerian publications — *The Nation*, *The Guardian Nigeria*, *Vanguard*, *Tribune*, *Independent* — which operate with editorial processes and accountability. These sources have published thousands of articles unrelated to the subject and are recognized across numerous other Wikipedia entries.
None of the coverage used here has been proven to be paid, nor are any of the articles labeled as sponsored or advertorials. Importantly, the Wikipedia article itself does not reproduce promotional language — the content has been rewritten in full neutrality, avoiding all subjective claims.
Caution toward sources is valid — but defaulting to the assumption of corruption without specific proof risks being discriminatory and undermines the credibility of legitimate journalism in Nigeria. Wikipedia evaluates sources based on **reliability**, **independence**, and **editorial control**, all of which are present here.
If concerns remain, adjustments can be made to de-emphasize any weak or flowery sources. But deletion on the basis of an assumption about an entire country’s media would set a troubling precedent.
-- Sapeotyy (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. I repeat. Do you have any examples of significant coverage outside of the promotional articles from Nigerian newspapers that we can use? We can end this AfD now by providing two independent, reliable sources that provide significant and unbiased coverage on the subject. Honestly, it feels like I'm talking to SmarterChild here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want to respond directly and clearly: Nothing in the article indicates that these are promotional or sponsored pieces. That assumption appears speculative and unsupported.
The accusation that these articles are "promo" simply because they are positive or published in Nigerian media misrepresents both the sources and the broader standard of WP:GNG, which focuses on **reliability**, **independence**, and **editorial oversight** — all of which are satisfied here.
Regarding the “SmarterChild” comment — I’m engaging in good faith, answering your questions, and referencing policy throughout. It’s disappointing to be met with sarcasm while defending content supported by verifiable sources. If any specific claim is still of concern, I’m open to clarifying or adjusting. But dismissing an article due to **unsupported generalizations about Nigerian journalism** risks setting an unfair and discriminatory precedent.
-- Sapeotyy (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me, hand on heart, that you don't see any problems whatsoever with the 'references' that you have provided? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern; references on biographical articles should absolutely be scrutinized. That said, the current sources are independent and provide significant coverage of the subject, which meets the threshold set by WP:GNG. While they may not all be high-profile publications, they are publicly verifiable, not self-published, and not trivial mentions.
Of course, if any specific source fails WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV, I’m open to discussing that, but taken together, these references appear to satisfy notability requirements as defined by policy. Sapeotyy (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've reviewed the article and the sources, and in my view, it clearly satisfies notability per WP:GNG. The article itself reads neutrally and is properly referenced. Unless there’s a policy-based argument beyond skepticism of regional media, I don’t see grounds for deletion. Suggest closing as keep. Rhughax (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what a wonderful time to be alive, if this is no a discriminatory reason for your to request for this article to be brought down , and if you haven’t had any prior issues with Nigerian journalism, i will humbly suggest this discussion should be outrightly closed . Furthermore i would suggest editors to consider using their Medulla oblongata before requesting for such an obnoxious yet infinitesimal and nonchalant request about discussing what should not be discussed in a a logical reasoning. Finally should there be need to criticize kindly make it a constructive one and not a direct insult on the country .
Dayballar (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)— Dayballar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - if this article is to be kept then all promotional references need to be removed. Vanguard is promotional. It contains Growing up surrounded by these influences, Adebola found himself swimming naturally in a sea of stories, language, and culture. and His homeland’s stories, traditions, and values created a foundation he carries proudly, inspiring his work and vision. Carrying the Torch Forward Today, Adebola is the publisher of Dkmngr, a platform dedicated to amplifying voices, culture, and creative thought. Tribune Online contains Adebola Opaleye chooses something else: substance in a digital world that often rewards speed and spectacle. And by doing this, he’s not just building a platform; he’s paving the road for others to follow. Because the quietest stories frequently resonate with us the most. Guardian contains Fifteen years in, Adebola Opaleye isn’t chasing visibility. He’s chasing value. He’s publishing not to please the internet, but to serve the people who come to his platform looking for something real. In a time when so much online feels fast and forgettable, DKMNGR and the man behind it remain slow, steady, and unforgettable. The Nation contains many unacceptable sentences. Some of which are Some people don’t need to speak loudly to be noticed. Their work speaks for them. Adebola Opaleye, better known as Dakingsman, is one of those people. and He is continuing a legacy passed down from his grandfather and father: a love of writing, a respect for truth, and a belief in the power of storytelling. But he’s also building his own legacy: one that belongs to a new generation of digital thinkers and truth-seekers. This is just a small list of examples of problems with the references provided. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Thanks for the clarification. To be clear: the article does not reproduce the promotional language quoted above. All original coverage, including *The Nation*, *Tribune*, *Guardian*, and *Vanguard*, has been used selectively, with only neutral and verifiable content included in the article. The presence of narrative or expressive writing in a published profile does not make the source unreliable. Many respected biographies in major newspapers feature such language, this is a stylistic choice, not a disqualifier under WP:RS. What matters under WP:GNG is the existence of **significant**, **independent**, and **reliable** coverage, not whether the coverage is enthusiastically written. If specific sources contain flowery or subjective language, the appropriate action is to **de-emphasize or paraphrase** responsibly in the article, not to dismiss the entire source, especially when no evidence has been provided that the pieces are paid content or marked advertorials. This discussion has already confirmed that multiple national outlets with independent editorial standards covered the subject. The current version of the article is neutral and policy-compliant. I recommend closing the discussion as keep, with continued openness to minor trimming if needed. Rhughax (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IS states An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. - the last two words being of particular importance. Can the same honestly be said for any of the references provided for this person? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IS defines an independent source as one with **no vested interest** in the subject. That does not mean the coverage must be negative or emotionless, it means the publisher is **not the subject**, **not paid by the subject**, and has **editorial freedom**. None of the articles used here, from *The Nation*, *Vanguard*, *Guardian Nigeria*, *Tribune*, etc., are self-published, promotional materials, or labeled as sponsored content.
No source has been shown to have a financial or personal connection to Adebola Opaleye or DKMNGR. These are **longstanding newspapers of record** in Nigeria with professional editorial processes. Assuming vested interest because a profile is written in a positive tone sets a flawed and unfair precedent, especially when no such assumptions are applied to equivalent publications in other regions.
Per WP:GNG, notability is based on **significant coverage in reliable, independent sources** — which this article meets. If tone in any source seems too flowery, we adjust the article's content, not disqualify the source unless it's proven to be compromised.
Unless there’s direct evidence of bias or paid placement, these sources meet the independence standard required. Rhughax (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)— Rhughax (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.[reply]
Rhughax blocked as sock of Catherineinfo
    • Keep Now im convinced that you are a sore looser , and a charlatan. I really don’t know why you guys always love to find faults where there is non. I’m sure people like you would have objected the nomination of noble laureate Prof Wole Soyinka who coincidentally hails from same town and city as the person in the article when he was nominated for the prize decades ago. It is a known fact that Nigeria and Africa is naturally blessed with highly intellectual personalities and authors such as Award winning Chiamanda, Chinua Achebe , Ola Rotimi , Amongst several other great and prolific writers of international recognition.
    Dayballar (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Dayballer (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Dayballar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The difference is that Wole Soyinka isn't sourced purely to PR puff pieces. If you can provide 2 or 3 articles about Opaleye that aren't blatant spam then I'm happy to change my stance. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • • Keep as logic suggest, people can be celebrated for so many different reasons and for different reliable media outlet to publish the same thing about Opaleye suggest that he is been celebrated and worthy to be celebrated. Unless there is a policy based argument beyond Opaleye being praised in the media, i suggest closing as keep
    9:17 Catherinefo (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Catherinefo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SPIP states Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Do you have any non-promotional sources about Opaleye? I can see that you have tried to write an article about him before as you are the original creator of Draft:Adebola Opaleye? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No i have tried to write an article about him just as anyone might have tried to. I saw this discussion and said maybe i should contribute or is the discussion mainly for “family and friends”? Yeah evidence of notability according to Wiki’s policy are : Significant Coverage, (in at least 3 - 5 publications, newspaper, magazines etc?), Reliable Sources, Independent Sources, so this discussion is a waste of time and also a targeted one with the discriminatory comments made by you! Where can we report editors? Catherinefo (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Catherinefo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Do you not find it odd that the founder of a small blog DKMNGR, which, according to Semrush, only gets about 343 visits per month, has somehow had loads of puff pieces published about him in the space of a few days and that all of the pieces have fairly similar wording and content? Also WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice called brown envelope journalism. These websites don't tell us if the article is sponsored so we have to use our own common sense. If there is a lot of promotional language about a non-notable person who hasn't achieved anything of note, like Opaleye, then we can safely presume that it's a paid-for promotion. If you wish to report me then please start a new post at WP:ANI. Instructions at the top of the page. Please notify me on my talk page if you wish to report me so that I am given the opportunity to defend myself. Thank you. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There are a few solid, independent sources that give real coverage, not just passing mentions. As common sense suggests, the articles are on “News” categories and if it was to be a promoted post, it would have been on Sponsored post category! Dkmngr is obviously a new website with leas than a year old, It’s clear you have not done your research and clearly speak with a concluded mind that i must delete this man’s page, shame people think that way! Dakingsman is what a lot of people know obviously! which i knw has received attention beyond just self-promotion or routine news. As per you are not a judge, please don’t judge people you don’t knw! I’ve been told you have been harassing people, sending unwanted messages, please stop! 102.88.114.19 (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. The point is that a lot of the websites like Vanguard do not disclose whether the article is sponsored or not so we have to use our own discretion. If it is written in a promotional manner and about a relatively non-notable person, then we can reasonably presume that it's a promo piece. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something Presume is never factual as common sense suggests! Vanguard is not the only article that has written about the subject, nevertheless, Vanguard has got a section/category for promoted content which suggests your arguments are baseless! Non-notable person to me might be a star or celebrity in your village or city, which ever one 102.88.114.79 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! I have to log out of my account as a lot of user are reported being harassed by certain editor! My contribution is that this discussion should not have started, whoever that started this discussion surely has not tangible to do! Why would anyone categorised 5 different national newspaper outlet, labelling their journalistic work as being a brown envelop journalist. This happens when power is given to those that don’t deserved it! The article pass the notability criteria, and hasn’t mentioned anything enthusiastic. The fact that media outlets are praising their fellow journalist doesn’t suggest they are paid to do it as being implied here. Any time there’s any discussion about reporting this editor, please let me know as i’m not happy showing my IP to the public because of an editor drunk in power 102.89.46.82 (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already replied to you before, you can report me at WP:ANI. There is a button near the top that says 'Start a new discussion'. Any more accusations of bad faith against me should be made solely at ANI and not on this AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time talking here, what do you mean by as you have replied me before. Anyway, the discussion here is about the article not about a Wikipedia “Editor” 102.89.46.82 (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Wikipedia Editor left his glasses at home 102.88.114.79 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - since the promotional nature of the references clearly calls their independence from the subject into question, there is an alternative route to notability that hasn't been explored yet. WP:JOURNALIST gives 4 ways in which a journalist may meet Wikipedia guidelines. Is Opaleye a widely cited news journalist? Is he known for originating a new concept within the journalism industry? Has he played a significant role in creating a well known body of work at all? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep* - Thank you for raising WP:JOURNALIST. However, this guideline is a specialized supplement, not a replacement for the general notability guideline (GNG). WP:JOURNALIST applies primarily to professional news reporters, columnists, or investigative journalists, whereas Opaleye is more accurately described as a digital publisher and cultural commentator.
    The article establishes notability through multiple independent and reliable sources, which meet WP:GNG by providing significant coverage. Whether or not the subject meets one of the four journalist-specific criteria is secondary, since notability via GNG is already demonstrated.
    If concerns remain about tone or individual sources, they can be addressed through content revision, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV.
    -- Dayballar (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Dayballer (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Do you have any non-promotional news sources that could replace the current ones? This deletion discussion can be ended now if you provide 2 to 3 sources that aren't blatant PR/spam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what qualifies as a blatant PR/ Spam sources or articles ? This discussion is synonymous to perambulating you keep saying the same thing over and over, I have also observed that most of the sources are categorized under news and not promotional as you alleged. Yet you kept on making serious , baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the subject. I vividly recall you once alleged the subject to have paid for the articles to be published an allegation that could subject you to legal preceding.
Dayballar (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Dayballer (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
The Vanguard article is egregiously promotional. Firstly the title is The Story of Adebola Opaleye and a Legacy Written in Blood which is not neutral. There are several sentences that also make it PR. Such examples are Adebola’s story is a vivid example of this truth. Born into a family where storytelling and writing run like water through generations, he didn’t just find his place in the world of words; he was born into it, raised by it, and shaped by it. and the last part Adebola Opaleye’s journey is a living testament to the Yoruba saying, “Omo eja lo ni bú.” He swims naturally in the waters his ancestors charted, carrying their stories forward while shaping new ones. His life and work remind us that some gifts aren’t chosen; they’re inherited, lived, and honored. And in that inheritance lies both power and purpose. Are you happy for me to remove the Vanguard article from the references? I will then approach the other sources with similar criticism. Also, please clarify your last comment. Is that a threat of legal action? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your close reading of the Vanguard article, and you're right that some passages include figurative or narrative language. However, promotional tone within a source does not automatically disqualify it under WP:RS, especially when the article itself is published by an established newspaper with editorial oversight. Wikipedia's policies focus on whether coverage is significant, independent, and published by a reliable source not whether the language is stylistically enthusiastic.
That said, if certain passages are overly interpretive, I'm open to **de-emphasizing** or trimming reliance on that source where appropriate, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. But removing entire sources that are clearly independent and reliable (such as Vanguard Nigeria) without consensus may be premature.
My earlier comment was meant to defend the credibility of the Nigerian media and highlight the importance of not dismissing entire news ecosystems based on tone. If the wording suggested otherwise, I’ll happily clarify.
-- 102.88.114.79 (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.114.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see your talk page (I'm replying here since you appear to be logged out of that account.) 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard (Nigeria) at Reliable sources noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm a relatively new and came across this AfD while reading up on Nigerian media figures. I’ve read through the discussion, checked the article, and also looked at the sources. Honestly, it seems like the subject meets the notability guidelines under WP:GNG, there are multiple articles from established Nigerian newspapers like The Nation, Tribune, Guardian Nigeria, and Independent Nigeria that provide detailed coverage.
Yes, some of the language in those sources is a bit dramatic or poetic, but that’s often just the writing style of profiles and features. That doesn’t automatically mean the sources aren’t independent or reliable. What matters is that they’re not self-published, and there’s no clear sign that they were paid for or lack editorial oversight. The article itself has already been cleaned up to avoid promotional tone, which is the right way to deal with that concern.
I also don’t think WP:JOURNALIST really applies here, he’s a digital publisher, not a traditional reporter. So I’d say GNG is the right standard.
From what I can tell, this is a notable individual with credible coverage, and the article’s been improved based on feedback. I don’t see a strong case for deletion.
-- 105.113.18.139 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 105.113.18.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep as per norms Jumping in here as someone just reading this with fresh eyes. I don't see how this article violates any Wikipedia policies. The subject has received coverage in multiple national newspapers, which are independently published and meet the bar for reliability. Even if the writing in some of those sources is a bit over-the-top, the article itself has been rewritten to be neutral and straightforward, that’s what matters.
Not every biography is going to read like an academic journal, and I don’t think it's fair to assume bad faith just because a few quotes sound poetic. If the article sticks to verifiable facts, uses proper citations, and avoids puffery, which it does now, then it’s doing what Wikipedia asks. That should be enough.
Deleting it because of how some third-party journalists chose to write their articles doesn’t feel like the right approach here.
-- 87.196.74.188 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 87.196.74.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: No WP:RS. Source #4 is an interview. SPI investigation and random Keep votes above are the nail in the coffin for me. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – I've followed the discussion and taken time to look through the article myself. From what I can tell, a lot of the initial concerns, especially around tone, have already been addressed. The current version is neutral, sourced, and sticks to biographical facts without the promotional language that some were worried about.
    Wikipedia encourages editors to improve content when possible, not just delete it, especially when the subject is clearly covered in multiple independent and credible sources. That’s been done here. If any sources still feel too flowery or borderline, those can be trimmed or supplemented. But none of this rises to the level of deletion.
    This is a cleaned-up, policy-compliant article about someone who meets notability based on the coverage shown. It doesn’t break any content rules, so I don’t see a reason to remove it.
    -- 102.89.46.82 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.89.46.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – Honestly, I don’t have any connection to the topic, but the article doesn’t seem out of place at all. It’s structured like a typical Wikipedia biography, uses multiple published sources, and sticks to facts. I didn’t see anything that felt promotional in the current version.
Not every source will be perfectly written, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t independent or reliable. Nigerian media outlets are being treated with a bit of extra skepticism here, which feels unfair. If the subject has been covered multiple times in national publications, which he has, that’s enough to meet notability.
Wikipedia works best when we fix things that might be imperfect instead of deleting articles that meet the core criteria. That feels like the case here.
-- 105.113.18.139 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 105.113.18.139 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
  • Delete If ever we need examples of what WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is about, the sources cited in this article have to be prime candidates. None of them do anything beyond demonstrate how easy it is to get vacuous promotional pap published in that unfortunate country. Accordingly, since we have nothing remotely approximating to legitimate evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability criteria, we should decline to host this fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Looking through this discussion, it seems like the deletion arguments rely more on tone and interpretation than actual policy violations. There’s a lot of focus on whether the sources are too flattering, but not much suggesting that they’re unreliable or non-independent in any factual sense. These are nationally recognized publications, and they've written multiple pieces that provide significant coverage of the subject.
    Yes, some of the original writing was probably too promotional, but that’s been edited out. What’s left is neutral, sourced, and policy-aligned. Deleting an article because some of the coverage is stylistically enthusiastic feels like overreach, especially when the article itself is no longer promotional.
    If we start applying this kind of standard too broadly, we risk throwing out valid entries just because the subject wasn’t profiled in the most objective language. That’s not what deletion is for.
    -- 102.88.108.124 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.108.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Please stop wasting people's time with this repetitive nonsense. Given the complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy demonstrated, it is going to have no influence whatsoever on the outcome of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this gets deleted, I highly recommend salting the page and/or adding it to the title blacklist. It will almost certainly be recreated. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I think that recommendation is premature. Whether or not the article is ultimately kept, suggesting preemptive salting or blacklisting assumes bad faith from future contributors. Wikipedia operates on the principle of assuming good faith and encourages improving content over suppressing it.
    If the article were ever recreated in violation of policies, standard procedures already exist to manage that. But recommending a title blacklist at this stage sends the wrong message, especially when there are editors currently working in good faith to meet sourcing and neutrality standards.
    -- 102.88.104.53 (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC) — 102.88.104.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It would be helpful if you tell us exactly who made you come to this discussion and why. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody asked me to come here, i was going through Nigeria’s journalist page on Wikipedia where i came across this post. I bet a lot of people are swinging by from there! You don’t assume or presume bad reputation about a whole country and not expect people to come here and check it out 102.88.104.53 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a specific person or website make you come to this discussion? It's important you answer honestly. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the sources are blatantly promotional. Many also have no byline and are interviews (wouldn't be independent even if the article weren't paid for). Per the extensive socking here, the closing admin should consider SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 10:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Helm

[edit]
James Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A seemingly promotional article about a marketing professional and social media influencer who only received significant coverage in one article in The Inquirer [1]. He was also quoted and discussed in Philadelphia Magazine [2], but he was not the subject of the article—I don't think this counts as significant independent coverage. On the whole, fails WP:BASIC. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine has more than 15 significant paragraphs [3]:

No one represents the it’s-only-a-business new breed as much as TopDog Law, the entity launched by James Helm in 2019, not long after finishing — perhaps tellingly — a dual JD/MBA program at Rutgers.
“It comes down to unit economics,” Helm said cheerfully on a legal industry marketing podcast last year. (The TopDog founder, who grew up in Delco and now spends most of his time in Scottsdale, Arizona, declined my request for a sit-down interview.) In the podcast Helm went on to explain that you first have to know the average fee you generate on a case — if it’s $10,000, you have work to do; if it’s $25,000, you’re doing pretty well. Then you need to calculate the cost of acquiring a client. If you understand those two things — and if the delta between them is large enough — “then I can get aggressive about acquiring new customers, and I can do it profitably.”
Simple, right?
It’s a formula Helm has used with great success. Six years after launching TopDog, Helm’s operation now has a presence, according to its website, in more than 35 cities across the country, from Ann Arbor and Atlanta to Washington, D.C. Thousands of calls and contacts come in each week.
Key to the success have been decisions Helm made early on, starting with the consumer-friendly TopDog name. “I think traditionally [law] firms have been very bad at branding their businesses,” Helm said on the podcast. “Every other industry has names that are easy to say, easy to sell, easy to remember. Whereas with law firms, the brand wasn’t the focus.” In dubbing his outfit TopDog — a moniker that could just as easily have been used on, say, an energy drink or a new brand of kibble — he landed on something that both was easy to remember and conjured up winning. “I think a large part of our success is due to the name,” he said. “TopDog gets you top dollar.”
Helm’s second outside-the-box decision was to focus on social media when it came to marketing. In part the strategy was born of necessity — Helm didn’t have enough money to advertise on TV; even Google AdWords was out of his league. But it also spoke to his age (27 at the time); Instagram and TikTok were as natural to him as TV was to Rand Spear.
“We really thought there was room to revolutionize [legal marketing], especially on the social media front,” says Ian Harrington, TopDog’s first marketing director. (Harrington would go on to work for Pond Lehocky and is now co-founder, with Ryan Makris and Kate Schenkel, of Very Decent Marketer.) “At the time, no law firm was doing social media with any kind of success or results. It wasn’t by accident that we saw that as an opportunity. James was young; he was good-looking. He wasn’t as good on camera as he is now. That actually took a long time to get right. But we were willing to put in the reps to figure it out.”
Early on, TopDog’s social strategy was based on Helm sharing his personal story. A high school wrestler, he’d started taking prescription painkillers following an injury at age 17, and he’s said he spent eight years as an addict before finally entering rehab while in law school. The message to potential clients: I know what it’s like to be down and out. I can help you get your life back.
But in time that strategy gave way to something more over-the-top — kinetic videos of a hyper Helm doing everything from mugging at the camera to rapping. “We had to get our name out there by being bombastic and creating the TopDog persona,” says Harrington. “The algorithms of the platforms push the louder, the bombastic, the faster-cuts kind of stuff. And we really leaned into that.”
As is increasingly the norm in the personal injury law business, the cases Helm generates — through social media or radio or all those TopDog billboards — are not primarily handled by him or any lawyer working for him, but by other lawyers around the country. In fact, if you look closely at the language, you see that TopDog Law isn’t really even a law firm. Helm’s LinkedIn page describes it as “a leading case acquisition and plaintiff intake platform,” while the TopDog website calls it “a national network for law firms licensed to practice in their applicable states.”
The uber-referral model is not one every lawyer — even in the personal injury realm — is comfortable with. “I think it’s important for the consumer to understand who they’re retaining to represent them,” says Spear. “I’m here every day. I work morning till night. I like meeting with clients.”
Perhaps more to the point: Advertising done primarily for the purpose of referring cases to other firms actually runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct. As the rules put it: “It is misleading to the public for a lawyer or law firm, with knowledge that the lawyer or law firm will not be handling a majority of the cases attracted by advertising, to nonetheless advertise for those cases only to refer the cases to another lawyer whom the client did not initially contact.”
When I email Helm about this, I get a quick reply from his general counsel, Sean Berberian. He says that because Helm — through the entity Helm Law LLC — maintains joint responsibility for all cases, he’s not, in fact, “referring” matters and is, therefore, “absolutely compliant with Pennsylvania rules of ethics, as well as other applicable jurisdictions.”
As it happens, none of this may even matter. When I ask Thomas Wilkinson, the former Pennsylvania Bar Association president, about the relevant section of Pennsylvania’s rules, he essentially shrugs. “There is not a tremendous amount of policing in Pennsylvania of improper advertising. Sometimes that policing only occurs when there’s been a complaint about the quality of representation or a client feels they’ve been duped in some way. But for the most part, if clients are pleased with the outcomes, they don’t care a great deal about how they got to the lawyer.”
I understand Wilkinson’s point. And yet it still strikes me as odd, the equivalent of a restaurateur — say, Marc Vetri! — running an ad for his restaurant, but then telling you when you call for a reservation that he’s going to get you a table at one of Michael Solomonov’s or Jose Garces’s restaurants.
Then again, for better or worse, what TopDog and so many other personal injury firms are selling is less legal services than the idea of suing in the first place.

His billboard is covered by Philly Voice [4], a profile in OK magazine [5], his social media in Arizona [6]. Judging this against WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," there are five published independent sources. Little Astros Sign (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not significant independent coverage of James Helm, the person: it's mostly quotes of him and his staff about his company and the company's business strategy, with some light background info about Helm as founder. If anything it could count as coverage of TopDog, the company he created. More generally, Helm appears to makes a lot of noise about himself on social media and in the real world, so it's not surprising that some news outlet would quote him or mention him, but that still does not count as significant independent coverage. Separately, I am not convinced that OK! is a reliable source. JBchrch talk 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found additional sources about him [7] [8] but to me the article seems to be coverage about both him and his company but are you saying that you think that there is coverage for the company not him? I think the opposite because the articles all describe him as a person as the creator of the billboard, and Philadelphia Magazine article mentions him 18 times. Anyway, WP:BASIC — "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" — if Inquirer is already one independent source then the other six sources can combine to at least be one (which is more than one meaning it is multiple)? Little Astros Sign (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the Law360 article, but the Houston Chronicle article does not appear to offer significant independent coverage of James Helm as a person: it covers the billboard story, mentions that Helm is the person who created it, and quotes Helm. Looking at the sources you provided, the coverage falls in my view under the second prong of the rule you cite, i.e. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine). JBchrch talk 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoBlaq

[edit]
JoBlaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. A WP:BEFORE did not surface significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, nor are any of the four criteria for WP:NCREATIVE met. All substantial mentions appear to be the type of unreliable promotional coverage cautioned against by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, and reading through much of it brings on a feeling of déjà vu. This includes the sources currently present in the article:

  • Tribune Online "Callmejoblaq is undoubtedly a rising star in Nigeria’s entertainment industry, inspiring aspiring creators and leaving a lasting mark on the scene."
  • Independent "As he continues to push boundaries and inspire aspiring creators, the industry is abuzz with anticipation for what he will accomplish next."
  • This Day "Joblaq’s ability to connect with millions of viewers through his engaging content is a testament to his creative talent and comedic charm."
  • Vanguard and The Guardian NG (the same article with different linebreaks) "Joblaq’s fusion of humor, storytelling, and his American accent in his communication and acting skills truly cements his position as a rising star in the world of social media influencers, leaving a lasting impact on his viewers and followers."

etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all this make up an article. 2RDD (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this are well known Newspapers and magazines in Nigeria. 2RDD (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDP445

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EDP445 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is not good for this incredibly controversial biography. All sources are at best marginal when this is someone only known for extremely controversial acts that would need very high quality RS to include. Does not meet WP:NBIO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all e-celebrity gossip news websites, I don't think they are the "high quality" sources Parakanyaa was talking about -- especially considering that the topic of this biography is solely known for being arrested once but never prosecuted for a quite tacky charge. V. S. Video (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are reliable sources for anything. Especially for a BLP notable for alleged crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates WP:BLP1E KnowDeath (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Catacutan

[edit]
Romeo Catacutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find many social media hits, FB, Tiktok, YouTube, Reddit, etc., but other than that and some primary sources like press releases, other than the single source from SunStar already in the article, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yet another influencer puff piece.
Celjski Grad (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a WP:PROMO. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of online ticket sales of Ukrzaliznytsia

[edit]
History of online ticket sales of Ukrzaliznytsia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE. A simply unencyclopedic topic for a standalone page. This is worth maybe two sentences - if that - at Ukrzaliznytsia. Astaire (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Keep ==
This article documents a historically significant milestone: the very first online transaction for booking Ukrainian railway tickets, completed on December 26, 2008. This event marked the launch of online payment processing for Ukrzaliznytsia, which later evolved into full e-ticket systems across Ukraine.
I was personally involved as the initiator of this first transaction and can provide primary documents such as contracts between Express-2 and E-Cpayment, certification from Belgian processor Clear2Pay (now FIS), official letters from Ukrzaliznytsia, and bank reports from Rodovid Bank to verify these facts.
I am ready to share these materials confidentially with Wikipedia administrators to confirm the notability and verifiability of this topic.
--Tvladimir2 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were involved in the transaction, then this is a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and you should not have created the page yourself. WP:COIEDIT says: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Astaire (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
This article covers a historical first in Ukraine's e-commerce and railway sector: the initial online payment and booking of Ukrzaliznytsia tickets in December 2008. The event is verified by an official letter from JSC Ukrzaliznytsia marking the 15th anniversary, and an independent media publication by Espreso TV. I have already disclosed my COI and welcome further neutral reviews. Thank you. Tvladimir2 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: fails WP:GNG and is literally just a puff piece for the author. Oppose merge on the basis that once you remove all puffery, there is nothing left. themoon@talk:~$ 09:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic per WP:5P. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 20:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The VIP List

[edit]
The VIP List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article is of low quality as well. Joejose1 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Extra

[edit]
Doctor Who Extra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another web-series, similar to the recently AfD'd Doctor Who: Access all Areas. A search for sources yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the series' announcement or PRIMARY coverage by the BBC's Doctor Who sites. All coverage in the article currently are either unreliable fansites, or similar, trivial, ROUTINE coverage. No indication of importance or impact beyond existing, and doesn't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SIGCOV bar. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to either Doctor Who series 8 or Doctor Who series 9, which this series focused on, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Doctor Who series 8 per nom themoon@talk:~$ 09:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Fan Show

[edit]
Doctor Who: The Fan Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the recently AfD's Doctor Who: Access All Areas, this is another similar program covering behind the scenes info for Doctor Who series 10. A search yields no coverage for this show, only being WP:ROUTINE recaps of production info revealed on the program and TRIVIALMENTIONs in articles focused on Christel Dee, where they briefly mention she was the past host. There are no reviews or any noteworthy reception, nor an indication of any impact I can find. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to Series 10, given it's the most closely associated subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge per GalaxyBeing themoon@talk:~$ 09:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signature tag

[edit]
Signature tag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was going to redirect this to Signature block, but I don't think this is the only or predominant meaning of "signature tag", which appears in many different contexts (biology, defense, computer science, design, graffiti) in the academic literature. Few of those uses seem common enough that it would make sense to create a DAB page, and I think a redirect here is unlikely to be useful for someone attempting to find one of the other meanings. On the merits of the current article's focus, the subject of an email or forum signature tag doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and would be better covered in Signature block. Suriname0 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Brown (internet personality)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
James Brown (internet personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. There are many people in history who have gone viral for one thing but it didn't make them long-term notable; ie WP:SINGLEEVENT. This article has no reason to stay. It is mostly about a controversy with another creative Bobrisky; which has this article leaning towards WP:PSEUDO. Besides him being known for cross-dressing in Nigeria (an act that would be reported by the blogs/websites/news regardless of the person), there is no point in this person having an article. It also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. There is no sources that are verifying this person as a professional dancer. There is a source that mentioned he released a single but it is not notable as it did not chart, receive award nominations/wins, or receive any music certifications. Sackkid (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, that was a mistake on my part. It wasn't started by the subject but it was edited several times by the subject on the following dates: November 27 (2 times) and December 31 (3 times) in 2021, lastly on April 4, 2022. After his last edit, he warned about further editing his own page as a conflict of interest. Sackkid (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for raising the concern, Dreamyshade. Just to clarify: the article was not started by the subject, nor is the editor User:Buchei a sockpuppet or connected to the subject or any other expereinced in any way. The article was originally created as part of a Wikipedia training workshop for queer persons held in Lagos, Nigeria focused on bridging the knowledge gap around underrepresented identities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community in West Africa. I co-facilitated this training alongside other experienced Wikimedians and advised all trainees to begin drafting their articles in their sandbox which explains the use of the sandbox in this case. While it’s possible that the subject, or a fan, may have later edited via Special:Contributions/Wfjamesbrown, that edit is separate and does not undermine the good-faith contribution of the original article creator. Thanks again for the vigilance, and for all your edits on the article. Kaizenify (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Kaizenify, that's very helpful context! Good reminder to me to assume good faith. I was happy to hear about the Write for the Rights efforts from the Wikipedia Diff blog recently, and happy to try to support it from afar. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. What a mess: it's like a games of Twelves meets a Battenberg pastry. As I've written dozens of times, autobiographies are almost always original research. I have complete sympathy with the subject, who is subject to discrimination I haven't seen in the United States in my lifetime. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BLP1E, etc. Going viral once isn't pageworthy. Astaire (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Keep. An article being in bad shape is not a good reason to delete. With a quick news search, I found a decent source for him being a dancer, along with other material showing an argument for WP:BASIC as an internet personality: Brown was featured in a notable documentary, and there is a volume of ongoing coverage about him in Nigerian press. However, much of that is relatively light coverage rather than substantial in-depth coverage. I suspect that somebody else could spend a bit more time here and gather together more sources to assemble a decent article. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Updated vote based on finding additional sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the restructure of the page and I respect your comment but he is not a professional dancer. Also as I said in the above comment, "Besides him being known for cross-dressing in Nigeria (an act that would be reported by the blogs/websites/news regardless of the person), there is no point in this person having an article." Anyone who "cross-dress" in Nigeria would receive significant coverage by the media. Public disagreements should not be mentioned in the 'personal life' section. Also the film or documentary that he is featured in does not feature him as main topic. He is just a person that was interviewed in the documentary, he is not even mentioned as a cast member. Sackkid (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability claim is for being an internet personality. The article doesn't claim he's a professional dancer, just that he's a dancer, and the source I added verifies that he's a dancer.
    Are you saying that coverage of a cross-dressing person in Nigerian news media seems to be WP:ROUTINE, so it doesn't count for notability? I don't see evidence supporting that in the news coverage about him. Much of the news coverage repeats or reflects something he said or did on social media, which seems to be newsworthy because he has such a large social media following. A fair bit of the coverage also has an aspect of tabloid/WP:SENSATIONAL coverage related to his gender non-conformity, with superficial reporting that does not make an effort to verify claims, which is a large part of why I voted weak keep.
    As you can read in the sources I added, the NY Times review and Vogue review both describe Brown as one of two main figures in the documentary, not simply interviewed in the film. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nutshell, that's exactly what I'm saying. I can list several people in Nigeria who have gone viral several times and provide an article that mentions their names but it doesn't make them notable. He hasn't done anything of notable status. Social media posts and everything of that nature are trivial. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. Furthermore, when we describe a topic's profession, that's just what it is.. a profession. So with that being said, if he is not a professional comedian, professional dancer, or anything else, it should be removed. For example, when Wikipedia says "Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter is an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman". All of those titles are appropriate because that is a profession that she earns money in. It doesn't say "dancer" because she is not in the profession of dancing, nor does she make her money from dancer. And regardless of his position in the film or documentary, it still unnecessary for him to have a page. If anything, then this page should probably be merged with the film. You yourself voted that the page was a weak keep, which basically means it might as be deleted because it is not worth keeping. And as said before, it still fails the criterias mentioned above. Sackkid (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a comedian, it needs to be established that he does comedic work (stand-up, comedy-streaming videos, etc.). As a singer, he needs to have a charting song/album, certified album, major-label music release, etc. If you are claiming that he is a brand influencer, he needs to have been involved in major endorsements. If you are claiming that he is an internet personality or content creator, he needs to meet the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE. None of these apply to him. Sackkid (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A person doesn't have to meet WP:CREATIVE if they meet WP:BASIC. I've added more sources, and it still looks to me like there's an argument for WP:BASIC, but I'd like to hear from people familiar with Nigerian news media who can better evaluate the sources. Adjusted the article to describe his dancing, comedy, etc., as part of his content creation work, rather than as a separate profession. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So the page has been restructured so that handled the WP:PSEUDO problem but it still fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. He is still only known for his viral moment and the fact that he cross-dresses in Nigeria; a defiant of Nigerian law which many have gained recognition from. Also, the infobox on the page says he is a comedian and also a brand influencer but there is nothing supporting that he is a professional comedian or professional brand influencer. Sackkid (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per some of the comment made by Dreamyshade as the subject clearly meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond mere trivial mentions or routine tabloid pieces.

Brown is not merely notable for a single viral moment (per WP:SINGLEEVENT), while he first gained visibility during the 2018 arrest, his relevance has extended far beyond that. He has written an autobiography "I wrote a book to tell my life's story – James Brown". Punch Newspapers. 10 June 2022., released a single and launched a music career "James Brown drops single after Burna's Grammy win". Legit.ng. 30 March 2021., starred in the 2024 web series Hotel Palava BellaNaija, maintained ongoing public visibility and impact, including being the subject of legislative discourse surrounding the 2022 Nigerian Cross-Dressing Bill per here "Cross-dressing: Bobrisky, James Brown risk jail". Premium Times. 5 April 2022. and in Punch. All these clearly disqualifies the WP:SINGLEEVENT concern as he has remained culturally and socially relevant.

Also the subject has received extensive, non-trivial coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, including:

The New York Times – as part of the HBO documentary The Legend of the Underground which highlights queer activism in Nigeria.

Vogue (June 2021) – features Brown’s role as a leading figure of queer resistance in Nigeria.

"James Brown: Meet popular Nigeria cross dresser". BBC News Pidgin. 20 July 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2021..

His queer presence has also shaped various academic and policy literature:

Academic study: “Queer Nigerians Bravely Breaking Gender Barriers” – MambaOnline (2024)

Journal article: “Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy” – Sexuality & Culture (Springer, 2024)

This confirms his notability goes beyond personal drama and into societal, legal, and cultural relevance and duly satisfy WP:BASIC. Kaizenify (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just he wrote a book does not make him notable. He would fail WP:AUTHOR as he does not meet the criteria. As for him releasing a single, that does not make him a singer. That song was released in 2021 and does not have chart positions, sell significant figure/certifications, or win any major awards. Starring in a web-series and not a major mainstream series is enough for him to fail WP:NACTOR. And again, anyone who cross-dress in Nigeria is going to have some media coverage. There is a published article about who, subjectively, are the most popular cross-dressers in Nigeria but none of the mentioned people (excluding Bobrisky) are notable. "Journal article: “Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy” – Sexuality & Culture (Springer, 2024)" does not list him nor does it establish him as a comedian. When we say a person is a singer, comedian, actor, etc., it has to be established that those are their careers, not hobbies or one-offs. At the most, James Brown is a hobbyist and he fits certain criterias of WP:LOWPROFILE. Sackkid (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not require conventional career labels to be “formally established” per WP:ANYBIO. The breadth and depth of independent coverage, the substantive presence in mainstream and academic sources, and continued influence over several years all confirm that this is not a low-profile or fleeting figure, but a culturally significant personality in Nigeria and beyond. Again, while it is true that merely writing a book or releasing a song does not, on their own, confer notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO, the totality of coverage and cultural relevance of James Brown warrants keeping the article, per WP:GNG and WP:ENT. The New York Times, Vogue, Punch ,or BBC pidgin are not blog posts or casual mentions, they are substantial media features that focus on him, fulfilling WP:GNG. Lastly, he stars (not appears) in a multi-episode Nollywood web series (Hotel Palava), which received notable media attention, further establishing a career trajectory in entertainment and his HBO documentary appearance is not one-off or minor, it's a feature placement in a global production, reviewed by RogerEbert.com and discussed in major international outlets. Kaizenify (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article "Discursive Tropes of Aggression Against Queer-Sexuality in Nigerian Standup Comedy" does include a couple pages of material about James Brown - an academic analysis of a bit that a comedian did about Brown. If you have access to The Wikipedia Library, it has the full text available. That citation supports a claim that Brown is a noted and criticized cross dresser, not a claim that Brown himself is a comedian.
Brown does not fit WP:LOWPROFILE because because he has actively (and successfully!) sought out media attention for years. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject receives significant, sustained coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:
    • RogerEbert.com review of HBO’s documentary The Legend of the Underground – names Brown a principal protagonist and analyses his cultural impact.[1]
    • Vogue feature on the documentary and Nigeria’s queer community – profiles Brown’s activism and social‑media reach.[2]
    • National‑press interview in Punch about his 2022 memoir The Chronicles of an African Princess.[3]
    • Ongoing mainstream coverage such as Vanguard’s 2024 report on his visit to Bobrisky in prison, showing notability well beyond the initial viral clip.[4]
    • International news report by Al Jazeera on the 2018–2020 court case that first brought him to global attention.[5]

Coverage spans 2018–2025 and deals with activism, media career, legal history and public image, so this is **not** a WP:SINGLEEVENT or WP:BLP1E situation. Deleting per WP:TNT would discard a topic that clearly satisfies the General Notability Guideline. Mediascriptor (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Daniels, Robert. "The Legend of the Underground". RogerEbert.com.
  2. ^ Desmond, Vincent. "A New Documentary Highlights the Resilience and Joy of Nigeria's Queer Community". Vogue.
  3. ^ https://punchng.com/i-wrote-a-book-to-tell-my-lifes-story-james-brown/
  4. ^ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/photos-james-brown-visits-bobrisky-at-kirikiri-correctional-centre/
  5. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/27/nigerian-judge-throws-out-case-against-47-men-over-homosexuality
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTT Middleware

[edit]
OTT Middleware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, sparsely referenced, author refuses AFC review. What refs that do exist fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep . Per the above evaluation by @Goodboyjj , several sources support the subject and are reliable. I also agree that the page needs improvement, specially if AI used. Another option is to draft it so someone or the original creator can improve.Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this article. The article covers a widely recognized middleware technology that is well-supported by numerous academic sources. If there are any concerns about the content, I’m open to revising and improving it accordingly. Mmarietaa (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources cited in the article as well as by Goodboyjj are random low-quality websites. None of the academic sources actually mention middleware, and I can't find any that do. The only serious sources I can find about OTT/over-the-top middleware are random business news about awarded contracts, acquisitions, and so on, which don't help at all with writing an article about the thing. Even if the topic were notable on its own, the current article wouldn't be of much help. As mentioned above, it's likely written with an LLM, but in any case it's got huge swathes of text with basically no relevant quality sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bull

[edit]
Dan Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a feature from Huck (magazine). IgelRM (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A further review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Epic Rap Battles of History; Aesthetica source looks fine, others don't appear to add much. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merge or redirect would likely be confusing, as he was only a guest in that series to the best of my knowledge. Ike Lek (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, perhaps just a redirect although even that might be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1300403879"