Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Onuzulike


 * 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 per author request here  Pedro :  Chat  00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Onuzulike

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Disputed prod which I had previously seconded having been unable to find any WP:RS to support claims of notability. The text for the original prod was ''This BLP is of a non-notable person. This person has released 1 album on his own label (as can be seen on his near-empty allmusic.com entry). releasing an album on a non-notable label which is owned by the artist does not qualify for notability, as the label must be independent from the artist WP:NOTE. Furthermore, this person has released 2 books, all self-published work - .''   Nancy  talk  10:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. An entirely valid prod, in my view. I can't find anything on this guy other than self-produced sources - certainly no independent coverage per WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response Hi Mkativerata, I just goggled Lurrenz and there were about 41 900 results that include articles about him, interviews with notable Nigerian newspapers, and many pages dedicated to his works. To say that all you could find was  an almost empty page at allmusic.com shows that you have some personal issues with this page. I don't know who you are but you sound very insulting and I hope you succeed in your chose field.'


 * I hope you have more things that wikipedia going on in your life.


 * Thanks and have a very good life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.221.95 (talk • contribs) — 62.20.221.95  (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. If you could show me any of these independent sources that are about Lurrenz, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote on his nomination. I can't find them. My comment on the subject's self-promotion was overboard and I have reverted it. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Many links relating to his works were posted on the page initially but that wasn't enough. Links to his interviews with The Sun and The Guardian newspapers  were posted because his works were discussed there but apparently it wasn't enough. Links to different notable Nigerian entertainment writers that mentioned his works were also included but that wasn't enough. So please explain exactly to me what you mean by independent sources. If you want me to find those links again and post them here I'll gladly google him again and get the links for you. And please kindly explain to me what qualified this page for wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimbola_Adelakun. Oh I forgot to ask, didn't you come across children africa where he help many kids in Africa solely from the sales of his works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again Rapula. There were two reasons that the links you posted were removed:
 * They were not reliable sources being either self-published or blogs.
 * They were link spam being direct links to transactional pages for the purchase of Onuzulike's work.
 * There may well be pages of google hits for Onuzulike but if they are not reliable sources then they count for nothing. I strongly suggest you click through on the two links above and start to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You should also read the notability guidelines for biographies as well. Best, Nancy  talk  05:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Rapulu
Apart from the links that linked to his books at tesco and tower books, I also added these links:


 * Interview with The Daily Sun Newspapers I posted this link since his works were discussed there. Note that a respectable media house like The Sun cannot, in any circumstances, grant a full-page interview to a non notable person.


 * Interview with The Guardian NewspapersYou can easily verify the fact that The Guardian is one of the most respectable newspapers in Africa. And like any top News media in any country, they cannot grant full-page interview to a non notable person.


 * Rasik Radio and Magazine, Germany This is in German but it's clear that the article is about his works.


 * Interview with Silverbird TV I can't find the whole interview but this is part of it. Again it is easily verifiable that Silverbird TV is one of the biggest and most respected TV stations on West Africa. So they don't grant interviews which is played on their national evening news to a non notable person.


 * Lurrenz drops new single, embraces acting andLurrenz returns, set for collabos These are where some of his works are mentioned by a multiple award winning Nigerian journalist and an entertainment reporter.


 * The Vanguard News, The Sun Newspapers and Nigeria Movie Net I added the following links as fun though, but they still add to the debate. They're not about his works but at least for all these respectable media houses to be calling him up whenever they want opinions from Nigerian celebrities show that he is very recognized by his country's media houses as an accomplished Celebrity.

Children Africa After working with Mother Theresa, he started Children Africa and have been changing the lives of many kids and families with his own hard earned money. For this alone, he is very respected.

Final Notes: Africa is not like the west, in terms of modern technology, so not everything a notable African does that is online, unless the person has successfully crossed the international line like Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe.

I also saw somewhere that his books were self published and his music self released. Let me talk about this:

His music first
First, Lurrenzinc is a well known entertainment company here in Nigeria and his books and music are released under it. It's like P. Diddy releasing his music under Bad Boy entertainment which he clearly owned. Not everybody is born poor, there are some people that can afford to start up a company to handle their interests. Dr. Alban did it in Sweden where his albums were released under Dr. Records. It's also important to note that the subjects last album "Still Single and Rich" were the work of two record labels; Ulzee Music and Lurrenzinc Music. You can verify this by googling Ulzee music or you can contact any Nigerian media house about how respectable Ulzee music is in Africa. Any where you see the subject contracting an online music promoter, it's solely for the international market. There are great Nigerian musicians with little or no online presence because the country is not yet too advanced in internet technology. So since most of the music stores are not online, most Nigerian musicians are forced to use online music promoters like CD baby, etc., to project their music to the international world.

And then his books
His books are first published in Nigeria and they can be found in most bookshops. Using the online self publishers is only for the international market since most Nigerian bookshops are not online.

To Nancy I have read the notability guidelines for biographies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another link posted by Rapulu

I was just reading Nigerian newspapers when I saw this link. The Punch is voted - I think, for the past four consecutive years - as the most circulated newspaper in Nigeria


 * The Punch Newspapers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources presented above show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil. I'm curious: have you actually gone through all 11 links provided by Rapulu and read through the content of the 11 links to come to this conclusion? Amsaim (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the first three of Rapulu's links, which was enough for me to come to that conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From the first 3 links of Rapulu, one is a blogspot, and therefore not a reliable source, the other one is a link to an internet radio station, and is therefore also not relevant and is not a reliable source. The link to the Daily Sun website contains an interview with the title "What Mother Theresa told me" from May 15 2009. This interview has some questionable content. It is obvious that the Daily Sun did not responsibly perform the editorial task of fact-checking and accuracy, and apparently accepted unchecked material. Here are 2 examples to prove this.


 * 1) In the 3rd section of the interview, the following is written: ...Lurrenz who has worked with the late Mother Theresa in India shortly before her death and runs an online programme called, MySpace page spoke to Daily Sun...
 * What is an online programme called, MySpace page? What's that? Are the editors of the Daily Sun trying to say here that Lurrenz is actually running MySpace? Using common sense, this alone should make it clear that the editors of the Daily Sun clearly didn't use fact-checking and accuracy in their article. According to Wikipedia's rule of Reliable Sources, articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * 2) In the interview, Lurrenz tells of a "prophecy" which Mother Theresa supposedly made about him, saying that ... Mother Theresa, while taking our morning tea, told me... if I continue to fight for my people, I would one day be honoured with the Nobel Prize. When you check the copy of the Lawrence Onuzulike articles which administrator Nancy deleted twice due to copyright violations, you will see that this information about the Nobel price, was written at the very top of the article in bold letters. This makes it very clear, according to WP:DUCK that the intention for the BLP article is merely self-promotion, using the name of an internationally well-known person such as Mother Theresa to gain attention. The rest of the Lawrence Onuzulike article was written in a deep promotional tone, filled with peacock terms. This unverified information about an alleged prophecy of Mother Theresa is an exceptional claim, and for such exceptional claims Wikipedia has a special guidline: Wikipedia Rules of Verifiability states that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included..
 * Thus, since the Daily Sun interview contains unchecked, unedited and inaccurate information, and since the interview contains an unverified exceptional claim, this Daily Sun interview cannot serve as a reliable source. Amsaim (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the URL for an article contains the characters "blog" doesn't in itself make a source unreliable. The article was published by The Guardian, is a well-respected newspaper, and it just happens that the only copy available online is at blogspot.com. There is also nothing wrong with using a web site operated by an Internet radio station as a source - the link that you provided discusses the notability of Internet radio stations, not their reliablity as sources. This one clearly has an editorial process independent of the subjects of its content. The first three paragraphs of the Daily Sun article are editorial content, rather the the subject's words, so can be considered to be an independent reliable source for the purposes of notability. I'm not claiming that the subject's own words in the following interview should be taken into account. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This link leads to a blogspot. The URL theguardianlifemagazine.blogspot.com is a blogspot, with the main domain name blogspot.com. There's nothing to debate or argue about this. Wikipedia's Rule of Verifiability states that  Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable. A blogspot is being used in order to establish notability, and therefore this blogspot link is not a third-party, reliable and verifiable source to establish notability.


 * Concerning the Internet Radio Station, this link was provided by the article creator in order to establish notability. I have to point out that the german language that is being used on that link contains errors (grammar & spelling). There is no proof about any editorial tasks like fact-checking & accuracy that are being carried out by the station. We have no proof if the station has any editorial processes independent of the subjects of its content. It doesn't require much space or heavy hardware in order to run an internet radio station. Thus, the nature of internet radio stations usually is that editorial tasks are not being carried out, since all that is required to run the station is a little space on top of a table. Trying to establish notability for english wikipedia via a link to a non-notable internet radio station, with a page written in german language, is questionable.


 * Lastly, the Daily Sun interview. I have asked the question before, and would like you to please reply: when you write that The first three paragraphs of the Daily Sun article are editorial content, rather the the subject's words, so can be considered to be an independent reliable source for the purposes of notability, could you then please explain what is meant with the content of the third paragraph of the said article? Here's what's written in that third paragraph:
 * Lurrenz who has worked with the late Mother Theresa in India shortly before her death and runs an online programme called, MySpace page spoke to Daily Sun about the ban of his music video, his relationship with women, his passion for writing, his new album among other issues.
 * What is an online programme called, MySpace page? Surely, if there were any editorial tasks (like fact-checking, proof-reading, etc.) being performed on the said article, then something like that would not appear in the third paragraph. Or are you implying that fact-checking was carried out on that article, in which case I would like to know what an online programme called, MySpace page is? The fact is what we can read in that article: no editorial task was being carried out, and so this source is a questionable source and cannot be used to establish notability.
 * If the subject of the BLP is notable for english wikipedia, then there must be reliable sources available, in the english language, free from questionable content. There must be reliable and verifiable sources available that will clearly establish notability without any debates. If the only sources that are being presented are either questionable or non-reliable, then notability is not established.Amsaim (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Result of cross-checking the provided Links
This article should be deleted. The subject of the BLP, his album and his books are not notable. Wikipedia rules of notability have very clear guidelines for notability, and the links provided by Rapulu to prove notability are either unreliable sources or highly questionable.
 * Delete

I've gone through all 11 (eleven) links provided by Rapulu and cross-checked them for reliability. Here's my summary: all eleven links are either unreliable, or the content of the source is highly questionable.

1) In this highly questionable interview, the subject of the BLP is quoted as saying, that Mother Theresa made a prophesy concerning him, that he "would one day be honoured with the Nobel Prize." Wikipedia's Rule of Verifiability states that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Due to the exceptional claim found in this source, this source therefore is highly questionable, and thusly not reliable.

2) This link leads to a blogspot > Source states: "....blogs are largely not acceptable". = unreliable source.

3) This link leads to a page from a german non-notable internet radio = unreliable source

4) youtube link. no further comment required here. (=unreliable source, for those who still don't know)

5) blogspot. not acceptable as a reliable source.

6) blogspot. not acceptable as a reliable source.

7) This article has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the BLP. The title of the article is: "Will you allow your partner’s ex spend the night in your house?" The subject of the BLP is only mentioned once in this article in one line: "No way, not in my own house - Lurrenz, Musician". This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

8) Title of the article: "More tears for Michael Jackson in Nollywood". Subject of the BLP says he can't go to Michael Jacksons concert "because Mike is no more". This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

9) Topic: Nollywood stars mourn Jackson. Subject of the BLP is quoted thusly: "I was one of the first people to be notified as I stated on facebook. Black people are coward. We said he did surgery, a lot of whites did. Some megastars like Victoria Beckham, Jeniffer Lopez among others also did but the world is still worshipping them. We should have supported him." This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

10) There is no evidence that this organization is properly registered in Sweden or Denmark. Like all other EU countries, Sweden and Denmark have laws guiding the creation of NGOs or charitable organizations, and like all other EU countries, the websites of NGOs or charitable organizations must provide evidence of proper registration on their website. On http://childrenafrica.com there is no evidence about any proper registration as either a NGO or charitable organization. There is nothing written on the website to indicate that this is a NGO or charitable organization. To further confuse the matter, on the "About us" page of Childrenafrica.com, it is stated that "Children Africa was founded in Sweden in 2004 by Lawrence R. Onuzulike (a.k.a Lurrenz)." However, on the "Contact us" page, a Danish and Nigerian contact address is written. Due to this inconsistency the impression is created of an unserious organisation which does not fully adhere to Swedish, Danish or EU laws. This link is therefore not a reliable source.

11) This link is about the subject of the BLP, and contains highly questionable information. The article claims that "In Sweden, this cool-looking gentleman is regarded as one of the most important African music artistes living and working in that country." A swedish regional search of the Subject of the BLP yields 19 results. None of these 19 sites are reliable sources. Surely, if the information found on punchontheweb.com is correct, then there must be swedish sites to prove this. Since there are none, this creates the impression that the punchontheweb.com site is using unverified and unchecked information, probably given to them by the subject of the BLP, to write that article. This link therefore is not a reliable source.

The entire 11 links do not in any way prove notability. Amsaim (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see my comments above about the first three sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Final response by Rapulu
'''I'm the person that tried to create this page. This is my last response and if it's not enough. Please kindly delete the page. It's beginning to suck up all my energy. When I was creating the page, I was hoping to get help if I do any wrong, I wasn't expecting such a fight, insult and hatred.'''

Hello Phil Bridger, the link you called a blogspot is not what you think, The link belongs to Guardian Newspapers Visit the papers main website and scroll down you'll still see the link to their weekend art magazine called The Guardian Art Magazine, and that's what you called a blogspot. It doesn't look like you're carrying out as much investigations as you claim.


 * In The Sun Newspapers interview, they referred to him as the owner of his myspace page at The interview was carried out when Myspace was still hot for musicians and it's always mentioned during interviews even by top American celebrities. The Sun never said he was the owner of MYSPACE.COM. You don't seem neutral in this affair, you seem to have found me (the page creator) guilty and that's clearly clouding your judgment.

I never disagreed with the fact that the first time I created the page it sounded like a promotional page, and that was my intention (to promote the subject) because then I didn't know the rules of wikipedia. But when I recreated the page, I removed everything promotional. Yes I'm not a wikipedia expert but I can tell you a whole lot of things I'm expert at that you're not. I made the first mistakes and corrected them, after Nancy pointed them out in a humanely way tome, so why are you bringing it up again? Are you really helping wikipedia or just trying to satisfy your ego. Right now I'm writing like this because I feel offended by the way you tackle this topic. You've call Mr. Lawrence Onuzulike a shameless self promoter, and now you're insulting the The Daily Sun Newspapers for not doing their job or carrying out your style of hatred-laden sad investigation. They don't need an investigation into the subject's life because the subject is well know by all of them and they knew his life, even from Childhood.

And as for the claim that Mother Theresa made the claim to him, how on earth do you want me or the subject to produce proof? He, as a child, could have recorded it by an invisible recorder in other to present it to wikipedia after more than ten years? If you want to found out things, research. Contact the missionary of Charity and confirm about the subject's activities there in 1997, it's that simple

'''You guys have more energy than I about this issue because I can clearly see that someone is very sad about another person. So kindly delete this page immediately to save everybody headache.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.149.20 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rapulu. Could you sign into you account and confirm the above comment? If so then the article can be spedily deleted per our criteria on authors requesting deletion. Thanks! Pedro : Chat  20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello all
I just think this should be a friendly debate and not a do-or-die affair. However, there are a few points I want to point out.


 * Phil Bridger is wrong when he said that there's a law mandating all organizations to put their registration details on their websites, please kindly post the portion of the law that says that. And one more thing, do you know that many organizations don't even have website? Then how will you research about their existence and works? The answer is simple, contact the government's office responsible for registering an organizations in the country and in Sweden, it's the tax office. It's easier to confirm if the organization is duly registered, then if it's registered, ask them for the official address. I believe they'll help if they know you're investigating for Wikipedia. Please kindly let me know where the registration number of this well known organization in Sweden is Tibet Charity Sweden Even though their website is undergoing some renovations but if the law really states that the registration be shown all the time, it must be shown since they still show their account to receive funds from donors.


 * When The Punch Newspapers said the subject is an important person in Sweden, I believe they meant among Africans in Sweden. Searching his name in Swedish websites and getting 19 results, which you said are not reliable is a poor investigation. His country media recognized him, and he's being added in Wikipedia as a Nigerian so you should be searching for how important he is to Africans.


 * You seem to limit your investigations to the internet and that's not good for many African countries which have poor internet technology. For instance, search for this person morocco maduka, I bet you there are not so many results and you'll probably find most of the links non reliable. But morocco maduka is a music legend in Nigeria with numerous awards. You can verify this by contacting any Nigerian media house.

If you really want to help and not fight, contact the right places and do proper research and not base your investigations on google search. Africa is not America yet when it comes to putting our lives online. Even google search of the subject showed 42,800 and there are many interviews and articles about him. But somehow you manage to found a way to discredit many major newspapers in Africa. As an African, I find out really amazing.

Have a nice day everybody.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.149.20 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To Pedro
I'm glad another person entered this conversation because I was tired of dealing with your over zealous editor who shows clear bias in his investigations.

But Pedro please address this questions raised by my friend above. Let your so called Wikipedia admin post the section of European law that states that each NGO must paste their registration on their websites. In Sweden you don't even have to register your NGO to be recognized. What's important to them is that you do good work. Yes, I called the Kommune and asked about this before writing it. And oh yes, Children Africa was duly registered in Malmo, southern Sweden. I've taken photographs of this page, as advised by the Nigerian community in Uppsala - which happened to have an end of the year meeting some days back where I showed them this discussion, hence my friends response above. We have decided to ask Wikipedia the following questions;


 * 1) Should Wikipedia's so-called admins lie and make up laws in other not to get a black man into Wikipedia?
 * 2) Should the admins be insulting and held Africa in contempt (the discrediting of all major news media in Nigeria)
 * 3) Should the admins be racists?
 * 3) Must Africans be recognized by the west to be able to be on Wikipedia (the is because we've received too many complains about what other people passed through before their submissions of Africans were accepted in Wikipedia)

If we don't get proper answer to the above. We'll now go further with our complain. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wohhhhhhhhhhhhaaa. You seriously, I mean seriously, have problems here Rapulu. 1) European Law has nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with Wikipedia. 2) Read WP:NLT - now. Your above is dangerously close to a legal threat and if so I will block your account pending your legal petition for remedy. 3) Your Point of View regarding some seeming threat against Africa, black people et. al. is frankly surreal. I'm happy to help but this webiste is not against you - against anyone - and you'd better wise up very fast on that matter. Pedro : Chat  20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Rapulu to Pedro
So it's now clear that your over zealous editor cannot confirm his lies and made up EU laws. Welcome to Wikipedia. So now you can happy delete the page I created. And as for blocking me, that was too late because I've since yesterday searched Wikipedia on how to delete my account because I want nothing to do with a place like this. Too bad that accounts can't be deleted. Meanwhile delete the page Lawrence Onuzulike. Yes I've given the go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (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.