Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobrisky

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 no consensus. AfD heavily affected by socking and by low partecipation, no non-sock comments in over a month, WP:NPASR close. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrisky

Bobrisky (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)

Article with multiple issues. This article looks like an unconstructive article which is not yet to be on main space by the way source listed may not be reliable. Music Boy50 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails on so many levels, scandal mongering, hearsay, on the level of fleeting news. Looks like gossip about some nobody to me. Or it could be a hoax. Libel is a concern too. Even if the refs are legit, who cares? Internet scandals and memes don't strike me as encyclopedia material, admittedly there could be exceptions Speedy delete The sources are pathetic and without distinction, not to be trusted. The lack of expansion possibilities is manifestly obvious in the content that is present, the articles existing informational parameters seem to preclude any hope of improvement, in my opinion. The subject matter isn't worth a spot on the bathroom wall. This article should be gone before I press "save."--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough reliable sources to establish notability.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: per nominator's rationale, Oluwa2Chainz and JM Pearson. Also, there are no newspaper references that discusses him in detail, only entertainment blogs like Bellanaija. On a personal note, for security reasons, Wikipedia can do without keeping a sensationalist article that is barely notable on someone with hormone deficiencies (I mean this not in terms of his sexual preference but rather his display of feminine characteristics) residing in a conservative country like Nigeria. It is not worth the risk, it isn't safe for him for Wikipedia to further publicize him, I know my last statements aren't clear policies and guidelines, but human live should count for something especially when the subject doesn't clearly pass WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: I think you are right. --Music Boy50 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a way of encouraging new Nigerian editors to remain on Wikipedia and the recent cleanup done to the article, I am changing from "strong delete" to neutral. Would have voted "weak keep", but I don't want to be one of the editors that will make this article remain on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you all for your contributions towards my advancement as a Wikipedia author I'm grateful. NOW as regards this article I have provided more and more refrence that this subject is more than notable, I humbly ask the admin to do a fast Google search on the subject "Bobrisky" and view the thousands of results that would be generated in 0.5 seconds. Also I ask you all to view the article and you would agree the article is worth a space in Wikipedia. Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 01:24am 8th November 2016 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I can see you have improve the article with references but can you provide a clear image of Bobrisky. Before I conclude --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft: @Darreg: I just made a Google Research about the subject and found out that the subject is Notable which also passes WP:GNG but on his wikipedia page it does not meets the criteria for WP:GNG neither Notable here. --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:42, 13 November 2016 (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.