Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Burna (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Note for interested persons, I have nominated his discography for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Slim Burna. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Burna

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Slim Burna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional material of a non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Aside the Vanguard News source which looks promotional, Google News brought nothing about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stanleytux:, I am not surprised at your vote knowing fully well that the article creator is a sock of yourself per this investigation which shows you have had a long history of sock-puppetry. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that the admin that closed the previous AfD and the wikipedians that voted Speedy Keep and Keep did not know about the article creator? Nothing is hidden on Wikipedia, you ought to know that by now. Stanleytux (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, the previous afd was closed per WP:SK#2. Why not point out reliable sources which you think makes the subject notable? Pinging previous contributors on that afd to have a look at this. @JTdale: @Versace1608:. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, some 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Stanleytux (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references are basically press releases and gossips about his non-notable album and songs, except the last source which is a three-paragraph write-up and does not in any way makes the subject meet GNG and MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Now it's not about RS anymore. Now it's about Press Release just as you claimed in this AfD. How can you call articles written by trained journalists who have published numerous articles for various news agencies press releases?. I don't know where you get all that. Is this how you plan to discredit reputable medias? Stanleytux (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases can not be classed as RS and does not meet SIGCOV anyway. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwa2Chainz: I find it rather interesting and funny that an editor who was blocked for sockpupetting on commons [1] comes around and accuses another editor of the same thing. It's still possible that he has several sleeper socks for God knows why. And to the debate I'd say Keeep as there are sufficient references to indicate notability. This is probably one of the ways he settles scores
@L3X1: You think? On what criteria are you voting keep? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. L3X1 voted keep because the article obviously meets GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the policy I was invoking. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, note the above user just signed up and went straight to vote on this AfD. Has no previous history of edits. Stanleytux (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more participation from experienced editors/non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I diligently looked into sources used they are not WP:RS because most, if not all are blogs and obscure websites which everybody can set up and WP:SELFPUBLISH sources of Youtube and Souncloud.. That is why it didn't surprise me the only result of repeated search is bringing this Wikipedia article and the subject's YouTube videos. -Ammarpad (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danidamiobi (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Yea that's right Ammarpad, I noticed this too.[reply]

Ammarpad you need to look again, this time at the sources I provided above because Vanguard, Premium Times, Leadership, The Guardian etc aren't SELFPUBLISH. Stanleytux (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stanleytux: Please don't assume I just said what I didn't do, The Premium Times ref just mention his name in accident, that is why PL section was added so as to argue (ad Premium Times) i.e argument from Premium Times. If there is enough content for him in WP:RS a single minor accident will not come close to encyclopedia. Also you forget to bring the remaining sources which are all unreliabe and formed bulk content of the entire article. Completely unreliable sources of gisting blogs which are set up by everybody. Note: I am not against your article, and I don't care particularly whether it is deleted or not, but actually upholding Wikipedia policies is priority to me and your article goes against direction of WP:RS. Thanks -Ammarpad (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Premium Times isn't the only reliable source discussing the subject, Ammarpad and you cannot say that an article should be entirely deleted just because a portion of it is supported by SELFPUBLISH sources. What about the multiple reliable sources such as these here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Certainly enough to warrant a standalone article for the subject. Stanleytux (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Danidamiobi (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) I will be objective. Very very objective. I have gone down to investigate well and I can perceive paid editing, I perceive it in the air. It pains me to accuse so, but, that's what I think I'm seeing. Stan has probably been using puppets to engage the article and could have even gone as far as using puppets like Rita magnoo to support the deletion in a flimsy way in order to attack the deletion (Kindly read that again if you think you missed the logic). Why does he care too much against the deletion than anyone else? The explosive part here is that the Premium Times article in [2] was written by an author called Gentle Stan and that was his only contribution to Premium Times. I stand for integrity irrespective of what I think others might be up to here. Respond Stanleytux Oluwa2Chainz talk L3X1 and most importantly Rita magnoo if I have not mentioned him, her already.[reply]
What are you even saying? I don't understand any of it, sorry but you really need to place your sentences appropriately in a debate like this, so we can get your points/arguments. Stanleytux (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Danidamiobi, I had to go through your comments over and over again to find out what exactly you are saying. All these accusations including PE, can you prove any of them? Stanleytux (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stanleytux: are you the paid editor of this article , or the musician ? remember conflict of interest has no room here on wikipedia , Why does you care too much against the deletion than anyone else? Samat lib (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is beginning to look like a children's playground. Stanleytux (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samat lib Please take it easy with the unfounded accusations. I'm even more passionate about the articles I create than Stanley yet I am far from being a paid or COI editor. That is one policy that I have never broken. I have known Stanleytux on-wiki since his early days, and I think the statement by Danidamiobi, that he might have engaged in sockpupettery to vote on the negative in this AFD inorder to influence a negative psychology on the closing admin is a big stretch. However, the tone of some of his articles are often lacking WP:NPOV. Even if this article is not deleted, it doesn't deserve to be this lengthy. I recuse myself from !voting in this AFD. Darreg (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment when you take a good look to the creators of the Wikipedia mother languages page of this very article in portugal, Bahasa indonesia, kiswahili, Simple English, Lingala, just to mention few languages , the creator names is Stanleytux .

and the orther Wikipedia language articles was created by dj arafat , Alice Shedrack , so now we can all see the root of this job. respond Darreg Oluwa2Chainz talk L3X1 , Danidamiobi, Ammarpad . Samat lib (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE the name of this English Language Wikipedia article creator on this very page is Alice Shedrack , a sock per this investigation investigation . so now we all can see the root of the hidden job .
@Stanleytux: are you the paid editor of this article , or the musician ? Samat lib (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia. You still haven't made any reasonable points yet, and FYI, I'm still going to create more and more Slim Burna pages in other languages, so be on the lookout for them. Stanleytux (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, note this Wikipedia user Stanleytux may be a Wikipedia paid Editor or the musician in perticuler ., this system goes against the Wikipedia policies , beside the musician fail WP:BIO, and WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you donot know this but you can get a block for making unfounded accusations and personal attacks against any Wikipedia editor. Don't go too far. Stanleytux (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oluwa2Chainz: i have not involve in personal attacks, what i said was a true fact . beside dont accused me of something i knows nothing about .. ok Samat lib (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to improve on your use of the English language, particularly spellings, and sentences. IMO, you don't just have what it takes to participate in AfD debates on the English wikipedia. Stanleytux (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I just recently read someone warning, "Maybe you donot know this but you can get a block for making unfounded accusations and personal attacks against any Wikipedia editor. Don't go too far." Ifnord (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is strange about enlightening an editor? think of another way to tell a funny joke. This one certainly didn't succeed. Stanleytux (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange is "enlightening" an editor about the possibility of getting blocked for using a personal attack - and then using a personal attack against an editor. It's neither a joke nor funny. Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but it's a fact that the editor needs to work on his or her English. It's very obvious, from his or her spellings, and grammar. That is not a personal attack. Stanleytux (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't place maintenance templates on articles because we want to personally attack those articles but because we want editors to help improve them. Same applies here. This is the English language Wikipedia where English matters and AfD debates should be taken seriously. Stanleytux (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slim_Burna_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068841009"