User talk:Opatachibueze

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) ''' Hello, Opatachibueze, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Be kind to others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself
 * Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type  on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes ( xwiz ); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Emeka Okonkwo


The article Emeka Okonkwo has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dogsix (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Opatachibueze (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Hi reddogsix, replied on your talk page. Just seeing this one now and realizing it is a message :D :D

Nomination of Emeka Okonkwo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emeka Okonkwo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Emeka Okonkwo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dogsix (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bright Ukpabi


A tag has been placed on Bright Ukpabi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. MaejorM (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iwuno collins


A tag has been placed on Iwuno collins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glory osei


A tag has been placed on Glory osei requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Grace ihejiamaizu moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Grace ihejiamaizu, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grace Ihejiamaizu has been accepted
 Grace Ihejiamaizu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MurielMary (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Grace_Ihejiamaizu help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patricia technologies (September 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Patricia technologies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Patricia technologies, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Patricia_technologies Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SamHolt6&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Patricia_technologies reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Aurora Chisté for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aurora Chisté is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Aurora Chisté until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lorenzo Menakaya


A tag has been placed on Lorenzo Menakaya, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edwardx (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grace Ihejiamaizu


A tag has been placed on Grace Ihejiamaizu, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edwardx (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Opatachibueze. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉  22:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: As you said yourself back in March 2018 (diff), "Most entertainment celebrities in Nigeria only appear in blogs." They are very rarely notable by Wikipedia's standards of what belongs in an encyclopedia.


 * Thank you Athaenera, really appreciate your time.

By that sentence, I meant that appearing more in blogs doesn't make them less notable, just different. I thought I have actually come across pages that were initiated by acquaintances before, I mean, if a notable person is truly popular, you would have met one or two times. Personally, I'm a very neutral and critical person though, I always want people to point out exactly the sentence or word that they think is problematic but it seems to be a very hard demand on Wikipedia. I'm a teacher myself, been teaching programming for over 10 years, we are all brothers/sisters, I don't see any point for someone to just label something in entirety unless it is truly that label in entirety. But a lot of the in-betweens are caught up in that mess, such that you can now have a case where two people's opinion on the same article as so different because they are struggling to wholly categorize or label it to save their time. Opatachibueze (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid
Hello Opatachibueze. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Opatachibueze. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ''Hey you may want to go through polices & guidelines on receiving payment for creating articles on living persons. You edits show you creating articles for people clearly non notable. An example is your page on Glory Osei which was speedy deleted. Do endeavor to disclose names of your employer or employers forthwith. Cheers '' Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Celestina, I have already stated elsewhere that I am not doing this for payment and that it is insulting for anyone to imply this. I have also left some arguments about notability before. I learnt the hard way when starting and honestly if not for the 'Be Bold' reminder I keep seeing on my talk page and having met some of the wikimedia representatives on Ethiopia before, I would have left Wikipedia after all those speedy deletion requests. I actually thought it was okay to write about people you know until I learnt about the conflict of interest. Nevertheless I follow the style of already accepted articles when trying to write new ones. I have been focusing on writing about people I know but I will try to moderate this. Even at that, I am still more interested in writing about my country. Opatachibueze (talk)

Requests for uncreated articles
Greetings & a great weekend to you all. I believe it would be great if the (Requests for uncreated articles) section in our wiki project can be attended to & at least one article be created this weekend as some requests have been pending since 2016. I believe this would be pivotal to the encyclopedia as a whole & a means to get editors who have gone inactive to revive their Wikipedia activities. Sent by. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Patricia technologies concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Patricia technologies, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Patricia technologies


Hello, Opatachibueze. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patricia technologies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. kingboyk (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you (User talk:Kingboyk) will delete accordingly next time :D Opatachibueze (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Grace Ihejiamaizu concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Grace Ihejiamaizu, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Grace Ihejiamaizu


Hello, Opatachibueze. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Grace Ihejiamaizu".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Nomination of Ezra Olubi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ezra Olubi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ezra Olubi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  scope_creep Talk  00:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

June 2022
Popularity is completely subjective and cannot be used without evidence or something to back it up. There is no polling on the LP at all. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Kindly refer to WP:NPOV guidelines with highlight on 'significance' which is the more relevant qualifier to a summary context. Opatachibueze (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if there was any sort of evidence to back it up. Is LP less popular than the APC and PDP? Most likely but there is no evidence to back that up. Is LP smaller than the APC and PDP? Yes as a glance at the number of LP legislators shows the party is smaller. Plus popularity is subject to rapid change and a sentence on growing popularity is too much info for a summary. Just wait until more information is available to be put into a campaign section. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We are saying the same thing but in different ways. The stats you just presented is an equivalent evidence backing up the fact that Labour Party is lesser known as it holds less elected positions. The sensitive issue here is that parties represent people, it's not some abstract term or object that is subject to the adjectives used on inanimate things. It's more appropriate to say Asa Band is less popular than Justin Bieber Records than to say it's smaller. Opatachibueze (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but if Asa Band becomes extremely popular tomorrow do we change the page to say it's more popular than Justin Bieber Records? No of course we don't because then we would be constantly changing pages based on no actual data, there is no polling on LP's popularity. Using "popularity" goes against MOS:PUFFERY as it is an impossible to quantify measure, smaller is based on things that are measurable. Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're after, but the 'size' of a party in your own words is not constant either, and of course it clearly doesn't go against MOS:PUFFERY as first, there is no promotional sentence or text, and second, the two added statements are backed with authoritative sources which are the core of Wikipedia fact representation. Once again I'll draw your attention to adhere to WP:NPOV. Since you decided to include a summary where a less popular party is part of the summary because of it's significance, it's important to cite authoritative sources/refs indicating such significance. This is a public article, be as non-biased as possible. The adjective 'smaller' is sensitive as already pointed out by other authors. Opatachibueze (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no polls on the popularity of Labour. Zero polls whatsoever, the articles are talking about how Obi is the "social media king" not actual data on LP popularity. Find concrete and updating data on LP popularity and then it would make sense. And it does fall under MOS:PUFFERY as calling LP "less popular" promotes the APC and PDP while saying "gaining some popularity" promotes the LP - less popular is far more biased and less defensible than "smaller" which is objectively true. Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I used less known not less popular, and social media is a source of knowledge. And all you have done is to prove that right so far. Again you are clawing at straws and so far I cannot establish why you would want to retain a more ambiguous/insensitive term like smaller (which neither points out what exact metric is smaller about the party or what it means as a comparative in this context). I'm not sure why you can't see this outright but we may need to invite other authors at this point. Opatachibueze (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Less known is even worse than less popular. Ambiguous terms are better because there is no data on the subject. For the third time, find concrete and updating data on LP popularity and/or name recognition. You have been unable to show any data at all and thus you can't use terms reliant on data like "less known" and "gaining popularity." Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So the primary substance of this issue is that this is an unusual election or different election than others Nigeria has experienced since democracy reborn in 1999. It's not common to have 3 major aspirants with one aspirant running on a minor party and it's the fact that there's a major aspirant on a minor party we're trying to represent as objectively as possible. You already agreed yourself as is also provided on the Labour Party page that LP has less reach or representation in the government, by the nature of this fact already, you can represent it in different ways,
 * The Labour Party is a minor/smaller party
 * The Labour Party is a less known party
 * The Labour Party is a less popular party
 * You can agree with me that the first one has been generally true as of April 2022 but now changing with the emergence of Peter Obi. There are two things that made it a minor party before now -- First is that it is less known albeit being very old. Second, it has less representation at the national and state levels which also reinforces point one. The core fact about the party here that is undergoing changes is that it has less representation nationally, and you want to say that without using so much verbiage. Secondly you want a way to also represent this in a way that is coherent being that it is merely an intro summary, the summary needs to be cohesive. Having this in mind, you have to tell the person reading the summary that LP is a less known party or has less representation in the government but the popularity of Peter Obi is what is making his candidacy strong enough to be included as a major contestant. This is why I cited the two references below in the section.
 * https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2022/06/09/peter-obi-the-social-media-king-but-can-he-defeat-tinubu-atiku/
 * https://www.sunnewsonline.com/2023-labour-party-obi-and-push-for-paradigm-shift/
 * If you do feel uncomfortable with the short and summarized improvement I made, suggest a better way to present these facts better. Opatachibueze (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, neither of those sources are data-based at all. One of them literally calls Obi the "social media king" and has no actual data on LP popularity; it's first sentence is "Peter Obi is always trending on Twitter" - literally laughable to be using that as a source. I have asked you several times to provide the most basic of data proving that LP is "less known" and/or "less popular" - you cannot do it. Minor and smaller are two completely different things; smaller in comparison to the APC and PDP is objectively true and proveable unlike "less known" and/or "gaining some popularity." The second sentence on the "unusual" three-way election is completely needless and presumptuous, that is something put in a post-election analysis paragraph not in the paragraph talking about the primaries. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You sound a bit biased with statements like:
 * "Literally laughable to be using that as a source"
 * "'unusual' three-way election is completely needless and presumptuous"
 * With these as your counter arguments, I again don't think there's any point continuing this argument. If you don't agree that having less representation means that a party is less known then perhaps you we'll agree to just put it exactly the way it is (the less represented Labour Party) rather than using some umbrella term like smaller which can mean anything and may not be appropriate in the context since the parties represent people.
 * I also don't agree the summary is about the primaries. The summary is an intro summary on the general elections and not the primaries. Opatachibueze (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is laughable to use Twitter trends as a source, that is a joke. And read that paragraph, it's about the primaries. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying someone is trending on Twitter is a real fact, and it's not laughable. The source here is not Twitter but https://pmnewsnigeria which appear as a news source on Google Search. If you find the fact that the source highlights a person's popularity on social media laughable, that would be highly opinionated as it is a representation of fact that is also highlighted by the second source on Sun News, if it certainly not laughable if authoritative Google news sources deem it worthy of publishing.
 * And I do see what you mean about the paragraph being about the primaries (I had thought you were talking about the intro summary). While I agree you have a point, it is intro worthy not having happened for over 22 years and I urge you to find a better way to present it. Opatachibueze (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To use Twitter trends as a source on candidate popularity is a joke. It's worse than using Twitter polls and akin to using Facebook followers, it can be the start of an opinion piece not a source for actual data. It's simple: not every Nigerian voter is on Twitter promoting their candidate and not every Twitter account promoting a candidate is a Nigerian voter.
 * It will be included in the intro when there is a paragraph on election analysis, I'll try to find more sources for that but it has no place in a primary paragraph. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiments but it's also incorrect. Let me rephrase
 * Authoritative news sources find it news worthy to publish that a candidate trends on Twitter. While this does not necessarily translate to popularity in itself, the sources do find that significant and for comparison if you did read the article, the second one does not mention Twitter but implies it. That is not in any way laughable. Opatachibueze (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)