Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wale Ojo

Add links
Source: 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 keep. clpo13(talk) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Ojo

Wale Ojo (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)

Stub article about an utterly non-notable actor, created by a user who has done nothing but creating short articles about non-notable people, and !voting keep, with no policy-based reason, in AfD-discussions about similar articles created by similar single-purpose accounts, making me believe we're seeing paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not really see the point of this nomination. Nominating an article on suspicion of paid editing is a valid reason, the only issue I have here is that there is no enough evidence to substantiate that. However, if this was based plainly on notability as your first statement imply, then that will be very laughable, because I think a simple Google search per WP:BEFORE would show this subject as notable. It's just like nominating an article for Jackie Chan, Wale Ojo is a top Nollywood actor that meets ALL the criteria of WP:GNGACTOR.
  • (edit conflict) It was nominated for not being notable, not for being suspected paid editing. As for WP:GNG, passing GNG is a basic threshold that presumes notability, but doesn't guarantee notability, especially not if the media coverage is totally unrelated to what an individual is claimed to be notable for (such as stories about marriage plans), an individual claimed to be a notable actor also must pass other thresholds, which brings us to your claims about awards, where it's clearly stated that being nominated doesn't count unless an actor has been nominated multiple times for a major award, which means that having been nominated once for Africa Movie Academy Awards, a minor award, doesn't count, the Nigeria Entertainment Awards are in themself utterly non-notable and doesn't count either, and the same goes for the other two awards (a magazine award and a viewer poll), leaving nothing. As for WP:ENT it requires an actor to have had "... significant roles in multiple notable films", and in my opinion neither of the films you mention above is notable, in spite of some of them for some reason having an article here (for the time being, at least). A Google search returns only a couple of stories about his marriage plans and similar gossip, BTW, plus user-created content on sites like IMDB, and none of what you claim above is even mentioned in the article, showing that the article creator didn't feel it was notable enough to add. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated a whole lot of wrong information out there, which connotes a lack of basic knowledge in this subject area. I just hope I will be able to express myself properly so you can can learn. Thank God AFD is for one week so we have enough time to straighten each of your incorrect understanding. I will start with one film-one award. Now explain to me carefully, how Africa Movie Academy Award is a "minor award" and Phone Swap is a non-notable film. Please for the sake of us having an insightful discussion and so that I won't get irritated I will appreciate if you can go through the references of AMAA and Phone Swap articles before replying me. You can also read the references from Cinema of Nigeria article, to get a general overview and broaden your understanding on where Nigerian films stand around world cinema. Regards. Darreg (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not stated a whole lot of wrong information, unlike you in your previous post, where you clearly show that you haven't even read the policies/guidelines that you refer to. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I still want to know what makes Phone Swap a "non-notable film", and AMAA a minor award. Darreg (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. Apparently the user thinks only Western awards are "Major", and only Western films are "notable".
  • Even if AMAA award can be considered a "major award", can you show evidence that he has been nominated multiple times to it or any other major award, or that he had significant roles in multiple notable films as required by WP:NACTOR? Or you are just trolling? — kashmiri TALK 17:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he needs to have played major roles in multiple notable films. Minor roles do not count. — kashmiri TALK 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just that you haven't explained to us, how his lead roles in those listed films are "minor". BTW, note that the "Keep" !vote above is by Darreg, not me. We are two different users. So be careful, next time you go about striking off !Votes, or claiming that there are duplicate !votes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just as it has been pointed out above; a quick google search, shows a clear notability of the subject. There are several reliable and major sources, discussing the subject in detail (like here in The Guardian, here in Naij and here in Pulse Nigeria). Furthermore the actor has featured in the lead role of several notable films (some of the films have been listed earlier), passing the first requirement in WP:ENT. It is also important to note, that he is a major pioneer of the New Nigerian Cinema movement,per CNN; this also qualifies him for the third requirement in WP:ENT, which states: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". As stated earlier, he has also been nominated/won several notable awards, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. This AFD is sort of pointless to me; the notability of this subject is definitely not questionable.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely not yet notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. — kashmiri TALK 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subject passes WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO as stated above. This !vote is not policy-based. Darreg (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ALL the references you listed are one short interview and a few WP:TRIVIAL mentions (mostly his name only), directly making the subject fail WP:GNG. — kashmiri TALK 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the comment you're replying to, i spoke of WP:ANYBIO and WP:RNT, you speak of WP:GNG and made claims that suggest to me you're out to look for reasons not to keep the article, even though you're aware based on policy and with a little more research this article can and should be kept. This are the type of behaviour that should be seen in newbies not someone that has been here since 2006. It's very discouraging to find systematic bias being orchestrated and institutionalized by two editors who joined Wikipedia since 2006 and ordinarily should know better. Darreg (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On my talkpage you have made all kinds of claims about notability that when checked proved not to be true (such as trying to make me believe that "Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards" are sort of equal to the "Academy Awards", i.e. Oscars), and, just like some of your comments on this page, also showed that you obviously haven't even bothered to read the guidelines etc you link to. You have also tried to scare me away from articles that you seem to have an extraordinarily strong interest in, by posting multiple totally frivolous user warnings on my talk page, and even filing an even more frivolous edit-warring report against me at AN3, and when I challenged your actions you even tried to wikilawyer your way out of it, even though I know far more about the rules here than you do. And now, when all of those other attempts have failed, you're accusing your opponents of "systemic bias", and given the circumstances I don't think I need to ask you to clarify what you mean by that... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore all your shenanigans and concentrate only on the AMVCA/Oscar statement. What I said was that AMVCA is being regarded as "African Oscars" by many reliable sources. The term is more like a sobriquet that media houses and followers of the award gave to it, the AMVCA doesn't even call itself "African Oscars", that even sounds so cliche to me. African entertainment industry is diverse enough to create thier own history and doen't need to lean on the success of western ideas. I'm very tired now, but a quick Google search produced the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [ladybrillemag.com/red-carpet-photos-make-way-for-the-new-african-oscars-africa-magic-viewers-choice-awards-amvca/ 8], 9, 10, 11. Note that in the reference provided, there are reliable sources from Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. I have contributed to at least 80% of all the African film awards and festivals on Wikipedia, so I am well vast in what each brings to the table. When talking of film award ceremonies, AMAA is the most significant of all, but even AMAA doesn't come close to AMVCA in terms of the following and popularity, probably because of the media power of MultiChoice. Darreg (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR and has had significant role in multiple films and television series both in Nigeria and England. This blog source by The Guardian newspaper discusses the subject and isn't an interview. The fact that the subject has won or have been nominated for multiple awards also shows that he is notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Thomas.W: This is the second time you're accusing Darreg of being a paid editor without providing proof. You previously denied that you were talking about him. Why do you keep bringing this up if you do not suspect him? If you do not have proof to back up your accusation, please refrain from stating it in AFD discussions. For your info, the AMAA is a major awards show on the continent of Africa. It is an awards show that caters to all of Africa, and not just to one country. As for the other awards show the subject has been nominated for, they are all notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: Where do I accuse Darreg of being a paid editor? He didn't create the article that is being discussed here, it was created by user MKJ6006, so unless you're implying that Darreg and MKJ6006 are one and the same I can't see how you can make any connection between Darreg and what I wrote above... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for standing up for me Versace. I feel honoured that a veteran editor as yourself defends my interest. But I think Thomas was referring to the creator of the article not me, however I agree with you that he needs to take a "chill pill" on using paid editing at AFDs. This is the fourth Nigerian AFD that I have participated in that he is suggesting paid editing on User:MKJ6006. Paid editing is a serious offence here and should not be mentioned without strong evidence. Darreg (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[OT] Oh no, never. Presenting strong evidence of paid editing might get you blocked on Wikipedia, as it nearly happened to me when I got accused by a malicious editor of WP:OUTING a manager of an advertising agency. — kashmiri TALK 23:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: I am not implying that Darreg and MKJ6006 are one in the same. The reason why I thought you were talking about him was because I do not see comments by MKJ6006 in this AFD discussion. I also didn't check to see who created the article. I assumed that Darreg created the article because he is known for creating stub articles. Regardless of the current state of the article, the subject in question appears to be notable due to him starring in notable films and receiving notable accolades. One can't expect the subject to receive an Academy Award if they haven't starred in notable western films.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There's a duplicate "keep" !vote in this discussion. I attempted to strike it out, but the editor in question replaced it. Pretty petty of them, but there you go. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Exemplo347: Please note that the first "Keep" !vote on this page is Darreg, while the second one is by me. We are two different users. So be careful, next time you go about striking off !Votes, or claiming that there are duplicate !votes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will I be asking for too much if I said I deserve an apology for being called "petty" by @Exemplo347:?
  • Keep Although the creator seems to be a sock and has a history of creating non-notable stub articles, this afd nomination is laughable. A simple search proves this subject meets WP:NACTOR per awards and nominations received in leading roles. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my !vote is a keep due to information available on cyber-space which proves subject of the article is worthy of a stand alone article on the encylopedia. Now notwithstanding, this AFD is not in anyway "laughable" as termed by Oluwa2Chainz, reasons being, notability is relative & very subjective as so persons you may consider notable might not be notable to Thomas.W and if he decides to put it up for deletion he is very much entitled to do so. But just as said by Darreg, Jamie Tubers, Versace1608 the articles subject is quite notable and no matter the standard you have set @Thomas.W to assertain notability of any persons with stand alone articles, wikipedia provides us with primary yardsticks such as WP:GNG & WP:BASIC the article/its subject clearly passes this. This would end in a "Keep" obviously, you really aint need to push this any further, with that said, i would also want to commend your efforts on the fight against undisclosed paid editing & Sock puppets it is duly recognized.Celestina007 (talk) 21:305, 25 May 2017 (UTC
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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wale_Ojo&oldid=1138733656"