Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph James Nantomah

Joseph James Nantomah

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

Life coach, serial entrepreneur, but I don't see any significant independent coverage. The only articles I see are praising the guy's amazing skills in his voice. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) These three sources are not included in the article. Best, Reading Beans  10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourced to advertorial/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not sure this is Wikipedia material. There aren't any real news articles or anything - just self-promotion.  Waqar 💬 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have previously commented about policing of tone in sources from Africa and lack of WPBEFORE but I will assume good faith due to the plethora of interviews out there and give atleast reliable three sources that discusses the subject independently.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete We have independent coverage requirements to pass notability, and I don't see it on these sources. The links in the article, as well as the additional links suggested by @Reading Beans do read as if they were pulled by a self-penned biography package. If you look at the PM News article from a certain angle it looks like independent reporting, possibly just paraphrasing/rewriting but more of an editorial effort. Oblivy (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oblivy, I usually and always disapprove of badgering of !votes but what is the proof of the non-independency of these sources? The tone? I just want to naively believe that it’s the tone. But is it? Best, Reading Beans  14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the way the articles just say things about him, often things that only he would know or which would be difficult to track down. And doing so without any of the the curiosity or skepticism or contextualization one might expect from an independent journalistic exercise. Oblivy (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This may sound WP:OR but there are a lot, I mean, a lot interviews out there. Do you prefer I cite interviews (which I think is where these informations were actually gotten)? As I said earlier, we always make a mistake of judging sources from Africa with Western standards. Best, Reading Beans  09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the information, I am from Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans  09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have other sources that qualify for WP:GNG feel free to add them or cite them here. I had a look at each of the existing sources, plus the ones you selected above, and made my vote based on what I saw - a bunch of puff pieces and an article announcing he got an honorary degree from an unaccredited college. This has nothing to do with misapplying Western standards. Oblivy (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: We have very divergent opinions on the adequacy of sources on this subject. Before closing this as No consensus, I'll try one more relisting to see if we can iron out the differences in assessment of them. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sometimes we follow the content of the article, which most often appears promotional though can be cleaned easily. Others will leave WP:GNG, and rush to additional criteria that can presume notability. However, this context presents a good narrative of the subject. It's also unfortunate that this generation will neglect someone being a migration officer (formed word) or copy writer, but in the olden days, we see people being that and still appear on sources like the current generation. No matter the promotional (which I don't seem to find) contents in he article, it doesn't depict the fact of being notable, or treated in multiple independent sources. I first was following the discussion especially when it found this article by Vanguard as a well written non advertorial source, and it prompted me reading others. Here is my conclusion, the three Nigerian sources are all reliable per WP:NGRS, and is very satisfiable for WP:GNG. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the ones posted here by RB. The article meets WP:GNG, and sources are fine from here.   Comr Melody Idoghor   (talk)  19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: Reason for notability seems unclear in the article. Additionally, the sources are questionable in my mind. For example, the first source has a banner asking people to join their Whatsapp group and the third and fourth sources have links to their Whatsapp group. The The third and fourth sources also link to the same website, tribuneonlineng.com. The method of contacting pmnewsnigeria.com, the second source, is a Google Form, which seems unprofessional for an independent news site. Ternera (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think Nigerian national dailies should not be cited, you should state so. Most news outlets do this in Nigeria (as a way of driving traffic) but this does not affect their editorial policy. If you have any issues save for this, please, let me know. Best, Reading Beans  19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The group even doesn't allow anybody except admins post anything. Likewise the subscription of newspapers in Europe and America, that's a good way for Nigerian sources that doesn't seek subscription. Haven't I seen such in American newspapers even? Welp, those doesn't affect the contents published by the newspaper—editorial policy like Reading Beans said. We look at the established reliable source, and how independent the content they published seems to look. Cheers! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ternera I will understand why you’re a bit confused here. How or where newspapers choose to be contacted from or whether a newspaper has a link to their WhatsApp channel is not in any way unprofessional. These publications can choose to put links to any of their social media, it is all part of their social media marketing strategies. All these,
 * you just mentioned, do not count in determining whether a source or piece is reliable, that’s not what you look at. Don’t be distracted by whether they have links to their WhatsApp channel or not or if they decide to use google forms for contact. FUN FACT: A lot of websites integrate google forms backend for their contacts page, that is not in any way unprofessional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)