Teju Babyface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

It appears to me that the person in question does not have enough quality secondary sources to prove notability under WP:ANYBIO. I tried to update this article as best I could. The only good source in my opinion, from IMDB, confirms his role in the movie. However, I believe it would still fall under WP:1E. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete —- (moderate) -- This one is tough. I do not outright disagree with the nominator, @Mamani1990, but a few points:
  
  

1. A cursory Google search reveals a sufficient number of references, IMO. At the very least, I don't think we are looking at a WP:1E situation. I will address the quality of such sources in a moment.

2. I do think the language could use some polishing-up, but it's not terrible (nor is it a reason for deletion, anyways). My bigger concern is that this is simply a puff piece, covert advertising, or WP:AUTOBIO.

3. Do you feel that the subject does not meet the standards outlined by WP:CREATIVE? Genuine question; I could see myself arguing either way.

4. Regarding the quality of sources; When dealing with subjects and entities from nations that aren't great powers or superpowers -- even with an emerging power such as Nigeria -- one of my favorite essays to refer back to is WP:NOTLEVEL (which actually needs some work, itself). Very long story short, maybe we should cut subjects like this the tiniest bit of slack relative to how we might treat someone whom one might expect more references to exist for. It's not really an argument, simply something to think about. I wouldn't blame an editor for dismissing this position, but I would ask it be considered in situations like this.

MWFwiki (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good morning @MWFwiki, thank you very much for your input. My intent here is to add to the dialogue. I agree in principle with some of your points, especially #4, but not in this case. I realize now I should've probably written these arguments above when I originally nominated this article for deletion.

In my opinion, the application of notability guidelines on Wikipedia can sometimes lead to the unintended legitimization of individuals with limited or questionable significance. Due to Wikipedia’s dominance in search engine results, the presence of a Wiki article on an individual usually amplifies public perception of the subject’s credibility, regardless of their actual expertise or recognition. In some cases, this may risk creating a feedback loop where the mere existence of a Wikipedia article alone enhances a subject’s reputation.

It is 2025, and everyone knows by now the issues with Wikipedia and reliable sources. The main secondary sourcing used in this article comes from BellaNaija, a fashion blog, not a newspaper. They are clearly engaging in Brown envelope journalism. Newspapers published in Nigeria are notoriously famous for this.

Also, in my opinion, the nail in the coffin for this article is the fact that we have a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as evidenced here: Special:Contributions/Teju Babyface. Mamani1990 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually not aware of the issues with Nigerian newspapers, that is interesting, thank you. I went through the first page of results that I provided on WP:RSP; The only source that appeared acceptable was The Guardian (Nigeria). And even then, it was conditional. Most of the others weren’t mentioned, but a couple were, and they was strong consensus against using them. BellaNaija, where the majority of the indexed sources regarding this subject are from has been discussed at least once, with strong consensus against use. So, yeah, I have to agree, even in the face of NOTLEVEL. I usually reserve that argument for actual institutions, etc, but this subject seemed notable enough that I felt it was appropriate, but I think the questions behind the sources overrule any apparent notability.

Most certainly, though, the COI issue is major. I thought this might be a WP:SELFPROMOTE article but I didn’t see this user’s edits, I don’t know how I missed them. At least they quasi-disclosed. But yeah, that makes it a delete, for me. Can’t be re-written with the sources we have. MWFwiki (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]