Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emeka Ilechukwu

Emeka Ilechukwu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Recycled write up in different publications such as Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and The Sun. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observation. I learn Wikipedia everyday, I am not perfect and don't know everything even on Wikipedia. I have also taken note of all your observation to avoid such errors in the future. My honest opinion will be to keep the article and allow users to modify or edits. Thank you Olugold (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. Everything in Wikipedia is a recycled write-up of different publications, that's almost the definition of our existence. Is the argument that these sources are unreliable, that the articles aren't in-depth, or that they are not independent of the subject? Sorry, no offence meant, just seeking clarification. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, I’m in a tight schedule to respond to this. Ideally, it is okay, to check each nominated page before voting. Please, do so then tell me if you need want to see a reason. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the nominator's job to give a reason why an article should be deleted. I am therefore suggesting procedural keep, with no prejudice against a properly formed nomination in future; the current nomination has not been carried out correctly and there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Note that AfD is not a vote; whoever closes the AfD will decide based on the strengths of each side's arguments, not on a straight tally of !votes. It's generally not a great idea to nominate things if your schedule is too tight to give reasoning. Elemimele (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, my job is just to nominate — and not persuade you to !vote for delete. Let's analyse the following sources.

Akubuiro, Henry (1 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's inspirational painting, welded metal". The Sun. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Abodunrin, Akintayo (10 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's inspirational painting, welded metal". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Mbonu-Amadi, Osa (2 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's art dissecting opposing forces of life". Vanguard. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Read the piece and tell me if they're not the same. I'm not pounding on this with you, again. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, solved! We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were asking for deletion on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is a recycled write up derived from multiple sources (which seemed a very weird reason to delete!). But you meant that the article should be deleted because all the sources are recycled write-ups derived from a single press-release. I'm therefore striking my previous comment and agree (after some general googling) that it's WP:TOOSOON and we should wait for a bit more before an article on this artist; therefore Delete unless someone comes up with a second, differently-derived source. Elemimele (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven gone through the write up and knowing fully well that WMF is on it's quest for free knowledge accessible to all, I believe that automatic deletion won't be all that encouraging at all. Considering the author's point, she has learnt and is still learning and therefore believes that the work should be left for others to be access it, make some edit and update it; hence, I believe that it should be left so. Deleting it will deprive others access to it and might as well discourage the author. Therefore, I believe we need not cut down the sprouting shoot. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Having gone through the article,I must confess it's educative and In my opinion I suggest you ""keep"" the article (not minding the errors) for other editors to work on it thanks... Senator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)senator chokoSenator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Comment, I've read through the article and the reason for the nomination for deletion but in my own opinion, I would suggest the article be kept but rather improved based on the faults identified. I've also noticed that it's being improved on with the problem sources removed. Let's give this a chance and let it be improved on. Tochiprecious (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]