Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Journalism. 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|Journalism|~~~~}} 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 Journalism. 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

Journalism

[edit]

Dominic Heale

[edit]
Dominic Heale (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a journalist and news presenter, and added a reference to a local newspaper. I am not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, however, and he doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. The other two references in the article are primary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Said Raihani

[edit]
Mohamed Said Raihani (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'm not convinced this person is notable. The incredibly sparse references don't indicate anything. All his published works appear to be through self-publication companies, not through an actual publisher. Searches for this person doesn't turn up much other than indications they're adept at self-promotion. And a final thing is the edit history of this article is almost entirely full of SPA accounts that appear, edit the article heavily for a day or two, and then never log in again. It very much looks like the same person just keeping creating new accounts to edit. The whole thing smells purely of self-promotional advertising and resume. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rudraneil Sengupta (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)

Lack of significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources. The subject fails Wp:NAUTHOR and wp:GNG. Creator is currently blocked as a sock puppet. Zuck28 (talk) 12:37, 14 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 socks 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]
Blocked for WP:MEAT in this discussion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • 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]
    @AndyTheGrump, calling Nigeria an unfortunate country is quite a stretch. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, perhaps not the best choice of words. Nigeria has its problems, but it also has a lot going for it. Just not when it comes to journalistic standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 16 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]
    Keep I’d like to address two concerns raised here. First, the suggestion to preemptively "salt" the page title if this article is deleted seems both speculative and inappropriate at this stage. Salting is typically reserved for pages with a long history of disruptive recreation, not for a biography that is currently being discussed on its merits. Jumping ahead to title blacklisting assumes bad faith and undermines the principle of WP:IMPROVE.
    Second, accusations of meatpuppetry should not be made lightly. Per WP:MEAT, such claims require strong evidence. A group of editors expressing similar views does not automatically indicate coordination or abuse. Wikipedia encourages diverse participation, and dismissing contributions solely due to account age or agreement in perspective can discourage constructive involvement. Let’s keep the focus on sources, neutrality, and notability, not on casting doubt over contributors.
    – 197.211.57.27 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)— 197.211.57.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - As others pointed out, these news articles are very promotional, not independent, and certainly not reliable. I have to note that all of them, except the Vanguard article which was published June, were published this month. This, evidently, is an extensive attempt to publicize this non-notable person. The closing admin should salt to enforce AfD. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I’ve followed this discussion and noticed that early in the process, there were reports of suspected sockpuppetry, and some accounts were blocked. That’s understandable, Wikipedia takes socking seriously. But now, with no further blocks and no technical evidence, there seems to be a shift toward speculating that remaining participants are “meatpuppets.”
    It’s important to be cautious with such accusations. Just because several editors (especially from Nigeria or familiar with the subject) participate and share a viewpoint doesn’t mean the discussion is coordinated. In many cultures, and particularly within the Nigerian community, people naturally rally around when one of their own is being discussed publicly. That’s not manipulation; it’s engagement.
    Let’s focus on whether the article meets WP:GNG and is written in a neutral, policy-compliant way. Blanket assumptions about the good faith of others can lead to unfair conclusions, and Wikipedia policy encourages us to evaluate arguments, not origin.
    – 102.89.33.229 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existence of multiple recent sources is itself evidence of non-notability or manipulation. Public figures often receive concentrated media attention during a specific period, it doesn't automatically equate to self-promotion or coordinated publicity. The key standard under WP:GNG is whether the coverage is significant, independent, and from reliable sources, not how recently it occurred.
    The publications cited, The Nation, Guardian Nigeria, Independent, Tribune, Vanguard, are established national newspapers with editorial oversight. Dismissing them all categorically undermines the credibility of Nigerian journalism, which is not in line with WP:RS unless there's a consensus at WP:RSN to exclude them individually.
    Finally, suggesting the page be salted simply because there was recent attention or participation is excessive and contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of WP:IMPROVE and openness. If issues remain, the article can be trimmed, cleaned, or even redirected, but salting is meant for persistent abuse, not disagreement over sourcing.
    – 102.88.114.105 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting this garbage is a complete waste of your time. Absolutely no notice of it is going to come into consideration when this discussion closes, since it is (a) not based on Wikipedia policy, and (b) self-evidently the work of a single individual spamming the same repetitive drivel though multiple IPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: for all of the reasons previously provided. 🄻🄰 14:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and above. Without the promotional pieces (and an interview, which is primary), there is insufficient sourcing to support a BLP. Zzz plant (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per garbage sourcing and the sheer volume of vested WP:NOTHERE sockpuppeted interests trying to keep this. Borgenland (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tessniem Kadiri

[edit]
Tessniem Kadiri (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)

No reliable sources for establishing notability. Rht bd (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl azuz

[edit]
Carl azuz (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)

Recreation of Draft:Carl Azuz, which was rejected several times due to a lack of proper sourcing. Although this new version appears to include text from a LLM, and has more sources than the draft. CycloneYoris talk! 04:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I tried moving this to Carl Azuz (with correct capitalization) but the title has been salted since 2016. CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to address some of the concerns here and explain why I believe this article should be kept.
There's clear notability, Carl Azuz has received significant independent coverage from reputable national sources like Newswire, Petoskey News-Review, AdWeek, Old News Club, Buzzfeed news(still acceptable as a secondary source), and other separate national news articles(not from CNN), and various academic journals. He’s a recognized figure in education journalism, with documented impact supported by peer-reviewed research and widespread mainstream coverage. This meets both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
It's balanced and sourced. The article includes both positive and critical viewpoints, it mentions districts that have removed CNN 10 from curricula and analyzes scholarly critiques of the show’s ideological framing. It doesn’t just rely on primary sources; it’s backed by multiple independent, secondary, and reliable publications.
And to the AI claims there’s no policy against using AI tools to help with drafting, as long as the final content is neutral, properly sourced, and verifiable, which this is. The bold formatting issue seems to be a misunderstanding there’s no leftover “**” markdown in any version.
And im happily open to any improvements. Ill keep refining any wording that feels off-tone or promotional (which I don't know how it was seen as strongly promotional). Any constructive edits are welcome. The sources are solid, so polishing style or phrasing is straightforward and keeps the article aligned with Wikipedia's notability and rules.
I hope we can focus on making this article better instead of removing it entirely. Luka Maglc (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the subject is notable. The question is who is going to repair it. It would be helpful if you could fix the promotional tone in the article, for example: His signature puns, accessible explanations, and non-partisan approach made the program a classroom staple; ...distinguished itself through its fresh approach to educational current events; ...widely recognized for his role in reshaping current events education, and so on. Evaluations like ...described by educators as ‘inspiring a generation' need to be precisely attributed in-text if they are to be included, which is probably not necessary. There are also grammar issues, such as Having Non-partisanship language, actively representing multiple perspectives...; A pedagogical design where materials aligned with Common Core literacy standards; and there are other issues with colloquial, unencyclopedic style, as in He did not come without controversies....
I think in the meantime, the article should be draftified and resubmitted when ready via the AfC process. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overall concerns previously raised have now been addressed. The article has been revised. The issues that once affected the article’s quality have been resolved, resulting in a balanced and well-supported article.
Given these improvements, it is appropriate for the article to remain for ongoing collaborative editing and refinement. Recognizing the progress made, I think the article should not be draftified but kept live to allow for more contributions.
Further suggestions are welcome, but the fundamental problems have been effectively resolved and deserve acknowledgement in the assessment of the article’s current status. Luka Maglc (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This response reads like it is written by AI (see WP:AITALK), as it follows the ChatGPT pattern of saying the same thing lots of times but in different words. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still poorly written and full of 404'd references. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT

[edit]
AAFT (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 promotional article about a non-notable institute. The article is heavily based on unreliable and primary sources. No secondary reliable source available to establish Wp:SIGCOV, just passing mentions and trivial mentions.

If we remove, press releases, primary sources and blogs, merely passing mentions are available in actual news portals or wp:RS. Fails Wp:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The institute's founder's article was also deleted recently. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 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) 11:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen Magazine

[edit]
Sheen Magazine (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)

Notability isn't shown through reliable sources (see analysis table below). The author of the article admitted in the draft process that there weren't a lot of articles they could locate that were significant coverage. If this is the best that can be found, then there isn't truly significant coverage to be found. A Google News search shows a lot of press release type things and some coverage of individuals being mentioned in the magazine, but little about the magazine itself. CountryANDWestern (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source 1 Behind a paywall; the title, "Meet Kimberly Chapman" suggests the article focuses on the magazine's founder and not the magazine itself.
Source 2 An interview with the founder; magazine gets mentioned in two sentences.
Source 3 A press release from the magazine about its awards ceremony.
Source 4 Main crux of the article is about the subject, Whitfield, being on the cover of the magazine and then talks in more depth about her, not the magazine.
Source 5 An article/blog post by a contributor to Sheen ("I am not sure if you are aware or not but I write for a beauty & entertainment magazine, Sheen.")
Source 6 Gossip column type fare about the fashion at a party that the magazine hosted.
Source 7 Seems to be just a link to a Sheen Magazine article.
Aren't the Black Owned Businesses and African-American Magazines categories deemed significant? 82.126.152.14 (talk) 06:37, 11 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) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald Weekly

[edit]
The Herald Weekly (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)

This article is very out of date and I'm not seeing the sourcing to confirm even basic details about its longevity and ownership. I can't find any coverage of this paper at all, even under its (potentially many) alternate names. The acquisitions are tough to follow... it may be owned by Lake Norman Publications now, after stints with McElvy Media Group (maybe?) and others. The best evidence I can find is LinkedIn reports from former news editors who seem to now work at Norman. I hate deleting news publications, but this content is inaccurate and I can't even find press releases or acquisition announcements to verify it. An enterprising editor may be able to find more coverage for a more prominent iteration of this magazine or its parent publisher, whoever that currently is. Suriname0 (talk) 19:06, 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) 19:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Saylor

[edit]
Bill Saylor (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)

Biography of a local television journalist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis that establishes the significance of their work -- but three of the five footnotes here are self-published by directly affiliated entities (two from his own employer and one from the funeral home that held his funeral), and thus are not support for notability at all, while the two footnotes that are properly independent third-party coverage are a very short blurb about his death and an article about a local book signing event in his own hometown, which are both fine but don't add up to enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of his sourcing is primary.
Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman, a batch of several other journalists for the same television station this guy worked for who also largely aren't sourced any better either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, There are newspaper mention of him here Bill Saylor The mythical one (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more feedback on sources offered above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Journalism&oldid=1300957821"