Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azubuike Wokocha

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azubuike Wokocha

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not clear how this meets notability guidelines. References provided are of unclear reliability and at least one if not more are self-published. Claims such as " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single" without mention of charting position are more promotional than demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RadioFan, Well, I've corrected the " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single", as for the article, the sources are from media blogs reporting on music and entertainment most of which have been running for years now with professional writers. Please keep the article. Thank youAfrowildchild (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Number 8 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The subject has won a music award in his state, which is shown in the article. Numbers 11 and 12 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." The subject has released a compilation which was aired on radio stations in the country, he is also a radio personality and conducts radio shows on air. Also note that I've also introduced more reliable sources from the news websites announcing him as the producer of the year in 2009 in accordance with number 1 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles which says "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"--Afrowildchild (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little or no coverage online. References in article largely WP:USERGENERATED. Levdr1lp / talk 17:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject is West African and lives in Nigeria, has won an award in his country, has releases which was covered by radio and local news agencies who also publish online, has been mentioned on other articles indicating importance. Article has moderately sufficient reliable sources.— Adrian Esomchi (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article is notable to some extent and contain enough references from entertainment news websites in the musicians'region. Al Gomez (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User is a confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs). Other sockpuppets of Stanleytux have made !votes below, which have been stricken. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not have have reliable sources. Most (if not all) of the sources are press releases. As a matter of fact, the subject himself is not notable. He's only known in his hometown and not across Nigeria. There's even a wordpress citation included in the article. versace1608 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.--Alice Shedrack (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

~~Keep~~ while one or two sources are self published, subject has received significant independent coverage in newly added reliable sources ([1]) and ([2]) have been added to article. Just passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Tinted iris (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

keep per tinted Pass a Method talk 17:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Just gone through the references provided in the well-written article. Subject clearly demonstrates the notability standard in WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdstrike11 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tinted Iris's claims are wrong. Spyghana is not a reliable source, it's just a standard promo bio. Rhythm937 is the radio station the subject works for so is clearly not independent. Wokocha lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Contrary to the duffbeer's claim, spyghana and ogololaughs and a few others in the references are reliable sources independent of subject and also has editorial oversight. With that said, subject meets notability guidelines, WP:Musicbio and WP:NMUSIC.DJ Arafat (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account (sock?) peddling misinformation. Spyghana: "Do you have a story or an article to publish?" [3] "providing a platform where readers and contributors may have an imprint on public policy, influence public opinion and ultimately, contribute towards bringing the change that we desire in our country, Ghana". A website that hapily republishes pr cruft. ogololaughs: [4] "Incorporated in Nigeria in 2007 as a full time Events Management outfit, constructions and supplies inclusive", clearly not a relable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The account is a confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While concerns about unreferenced promotional sounding claims have been addressed, reliability of the sources in the article are still unclear. The claim that this artist has received a "major award" has not been substantiated, a state level award doesn't not seem to meet this. The flurry of sockpuppets certainly doesn't do anything to establish the notability of this artist either. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is unclear and references look unreliable. See also Nigerian scam. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.