Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey O


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. David Eppstein's contribution is the most compelling, and that view is shared by a sufficient number of his colleagues here in this debate to form a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey O

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Just another probable COI/paid article about someone who's vaguely notable for being an 'educator/motivational speaker'. Ref bombed with articles that anyone can get made for them. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors,  and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Source 2 is probably the best of the bunch, it's a rather short article in a RS. Rest are non-RS publications. A top newsmaker award isn't helpful. I can't find anything extra for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: He's notable as there's a lot of coverage in major reliable newspapers in Nigeria where he was born. There is coverage about him in a lot of sources including Pulse Nigeria, The Nation, European Financial Review, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Authority Magazine, Business Anecdote, Medium and many others. The newspapers he was featured in are the top newspapers in Nigeria. They should not be dismissed. There is no basis for the assertion that any article is a COI/paid article. That assertion is purely speculative and not factual. Moreover his book Dead or Alive meets the notability threshold because it was featured in Kirkus Reviews and Good Reads too. Evanzoe (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Evanzoe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment that Kirkus Indie is Kirkus' pay-for-review program, and a review there does not contribute to notability. Goodreads is user-generated, and also does not contribute to notability.  I have not yet developed an opinion on the rest. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * KEEP - While several citations are speaker profiles, Medium Blogs and primary interviews, there exists enough to make this person notable. I have also found some new citations. See Business Connect Magazine (not all of it is an interview), Vanguard 1 and Vanguard 2,hospitalitytipoftheday.com, europeanfinancialreview.com, Kirkus Reviews (A book review works towards notability for Authors),  Nigerian Tribune and Independent.Royal88888 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That Kirkus review is Kirkus Indie, and does not qualify towards notability (it's paid coverage). -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll do these in order:
 * I can't get this to load. No comment.
 * Not WP:RS, this is paid coverage.
 * as above.
 * obvious non-RS with no byline.
 * this is identical to #2 - obviously, this is PR copy.
 * this is the Kirkus review that is paid coverage.
 * I suspect this is paid, but I'm not sure; at any rate it's basically a regurgitated CV, not journalism.
 * this is the same PR copy as #2 and #5.
 * Not a single one of these is useful to show notability, with only a very slim possibility of #1 being useable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:NGRS These sources are reliable: Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and  Independent Nigeria
 * The Business Connect Magazine Article, can also be accessed here also, where you would see that he has 5 paragraphs of independent coverage before the interview portion. He is also on the cover of the magazine. While Wikipedia guidelines may not explicitly consider being featured on a magazine cover as a criterion for notability, common sense dictates that individuals featured on magazine covers are often widely recognized and noteworthy. Royal88888 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment that Vanguard was found to be only marginally reliable in a recent RSN discussion . I didn't try to track down the others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware and noticed that too, so in one place it says it is "Marginally Reliable" and in another place it is says it is "Reliable,' we can average that out and say it is Mostly reliable. I would also agree with your Kirkus Review argument, so that one would be considered unreliable. But we have many articles besides the Vanguard and Kirkus, so we need to evaluate the overall coverage and even if you discount Vanguard and Kirkus, we still have 2 other reliable Nigerian publications, plus we also have Business Connect Magazine and several others. Royal88888 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agrue if youre paying for coverage, and the other articles appear to be of a similar style, they're also probably less-than-reliable. Nswix (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be very helpful if an editor wanted to put one together. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Per Liz's last relist comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -First thing is, nomination based on notability is not appropriate because the subject clearly passes the notability. Regarding the WP:RS, just because there is a reference from Vanguard doesn’t mean other references also lack WP:RS. As per the findings by Royal88888 sufficient reliable discussion exists. As for WP:NOTEBOMB, the issue has been resolved by removing unnecessary links and part of the content. So I would say keep it and improve it if there is still room for improvement.Cruzdoze (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Obvious PR-laundering. See my analysis of the sources provided by Royal88888 above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the sources are not reliable and some of them are interviews. Cleanup is required by removing the unreliable sources and interviews, however, there are some sources that seem reliable for Nigeria related topics as per this list WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List.Atighot (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per source #8 by Nigerian Tribune, #21 by Pulse Nigeria and #25 by Independent Nigeria as they all provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. I must point out that the subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in the diaspora by Pulse Nigeria and he was one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 so that is enough to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NBASIC. Powerviki (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Keep - Although the article needs some work, there are several reliable sources in the article. These sources are clearly reliable and have been marked as such by Wikipedia for several years. The idea that all the major sources in the article marked as reliable by Wikipedia per WP:NGRS are all no longer reliable is strange and illogical. This is painting with a very broad brush. Should we then delete all articles on Wikipedia, especially the ones from this individual’s country of origin whenever someone doesn’t like the sources that have always been accepted by the community as reliable, or the writing style of the publications. Also, saying that all the articles are paid promotions is speculative and illogical. There is no basis for this assumption. Also, all the articles are not similar other than the fact that some of them are profiling the same individual. All the sources provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. The subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in diaspora by Pulse Nigeria. He was recognized as one of the 10 most influential people in Hospitality by The Nation. He was also named one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 which is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. There is no rational basis for deleting this article. Most of the arguments are in favor of keeping the page. Why should the page not be kept and improved, like so many other pages on Wikipedia? Why the push to delete this page?Cruzdoze (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This is the sort of promotional article that gives a bad name to WP:GNG. All its sources are at best repackaged publicity churnalism glurdge. And yet, because major newspapers are willing to take money to publish them, we see Wikipedia editors counting the blue clicky footnotes and saying that there's enough coverage for a pass. A hint: if Pulse includes prose like "With years of experience in the hospitality sector, Obomeghie's record as a technocrat with vast knowledge endeared him to his employers.", or when European Financial Review includes content like "one of the most famous hospitality leaders in the world, has embarked on a life-long mission to reshape the way we approach hospitality not as a one-dimensional transaction – but as a space for genuine human interaction that reinforces a positive presence in the industry", it's not reliable. If Pulse, Vanguard, and The Nation all start their profiles of him with the exact same wording about his family and his journal editorship, and that same exact wording appears later in the European Financial Review profile, they're all copying from the same publicist and are all equally unreliable (and certainly also not independent of each other). And those are the more promising-looking ones; none of the rest are any better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the SPA pile-on and PR laundering effort, I'm not seeing much evidence of notability here.  Sources show signs of paid placement and/or are churnalism.  Comment that some SPA and less-active editors have referred to WP:NGRS for support: this page was substantively edited mainly by a single editor (with a few contributions from a second editor), and I think has the force of an essay only; certainly it is trumped by WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and we cannot base a biography upon PR and churnalism. I'll concur with the comment above that WP:NGRS has no consensus behind it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2023 (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.