Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIMI ELSA


 * 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 Draftify. Per. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

MIMI ELSA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMUSIC - The references in the article look like they are mostly blog posts, interviews, etc. Article says one of her songs made the charts in Ghana, but the sources don't verify this... SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The search tools produce one blog hit that doesn't come close to WP:RS. The article's references are all from non-reliable blogs. (There's no shortage of blogs for the West African music scene!!) It's quite annoying to run down a series of non-reliable sources used a sources. Extra strength deletion for that sort of obfuscation, although this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON—she's attractive, and if she can sing, she may have a future. Tapered (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment So I am just going to say this. To say that the references to the entire article is bogus because they are mostly blogs is inappropriate. From where I am standing, most articles from Ghana, are majorly referenced by these same blogs that are being considered non-reliable. Does that mean all of those articles aren't notable and should be deleted? These blogs are the source of information in our "Music Scene". I agree that the article could be expanded, and more referencing could be added. But to delete an entire page after it has been reviewed for two months and accepted? Iamnvna (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As the creator and primary curator of the article, I commend you for not adding 'delete' or 'keep.' To say that industry blogs that have no substantial reputation are not WP:RS is entirely appropriate. Carlos Gardel sang that "twenty years is nothing." That an article has existed for two months is no argument at all. Tapered (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After an excursion in linking, starting with Ghana, then to Music of Ghana, and onward, I can answer your statement better. The answer is, "Yes, there are quite a few articles on articles relating to Ghana and its popular culture that rely on dubious references, largely blogs." I may nominate one for deletion. Look below the relisting for a related comment. Tapered (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is not based on the fact that the article has existed for two months. In fact It barely lasted a day after the draft was accepted and moved to the article space.What I was concerned of is why a draft would be reviewed for two months and immediately it is approved, be up for deleting. Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, read the above nomination and my assessment of the article's references. That's why this discussion is happening, and why IMLTHO (with appropriate evidentiary arguments) this article warrants deletion. Tapered (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or return to Draft for better sourcing. Two claims that meet WP:NMUSIC are a the verified by third party Artist of he Year award and that her song charted in Ghana. We have a bias toward US musicians here and US sources and need to be careful to apply criteria fairly. Sure the sourcing could be improved, but let's try to improve before deleting. The creator is a new user, a fan, not the artist, and put together a decent page. A much better effort than most of the self serving promotional crap we deal with every day. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This page—Vodafone Ghana Music Awards—has the real Ghanaian musical awards. None of the references that purport to show a song charting in Ghana actually mention charting, nor are they WP:RS. (A toned down statement) I'm not biased @ Wikipedia for any music—just toward the guidelines for inclusion/exclusion. Succinctly—they work. The call to "improve" the sourcing ignores the fact that the search tools produced zilch. Tapered (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's references don't meet WP:RS. The reference tools produced no promising sources. If anyone knows of any reliable sources, please cite them. All of the recent winners of the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards have Wikipedia articles, so prominent Ghanaian artists are already represented. Wikipedia is not a venue for fandom. Tapered (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vodafone Ghana Music Awards is the country's major awards festival. Doesn't mean that's the only Award show in Ghana or its the only viable Award Show notable of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. You are also talking chart, there are no charts in Ghana. The first reference you saw to that line is the best you'd get close to a chart in Ghana. Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me also just say this before you comeback with that, Yes I know what we are looking at to decide on the article are the Wikipedia Policies regarding such matters and not what a country has or doesn't have.Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What I'm looking at is the interface between WP:RS andWP:NM. The references are not reliable sources. The award cited in the article certainly has no Wikipedia article and a Google search produces no result. So it doesn't meet musical notability standards. And doubling down by creating Cina Soul for a comparable artist wasn't a good idea. Tapered (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac's comments just got through to me. It may be frustrating to you as a WP:NEWBIE, but the guidelines have (for the most part) evolved to impose some order and structure on the anarchy that is Wikipedia. And to act as a filter on editors who want to spin their viewpoints as revealed truth. That said, at this point, according to my understanding, your best strategy would be to familiarize yourself with the reliable sources guidelines and attempt to find some for the Ghanaian musical scene. This, instead of continuing to defend the article's current references. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my obtuseness. Your point about the review-to-AfD time is well taken. And User:Legacypac is the reviewer who signed off on your article! Further, it seems that User:SeraphWiki is rebuking Legacypac for approval of the article—indirectly. Well, I'm rebuking Seraphwiki for not mentioning the recent article creation approval in the AfD nomination, and Legacypac for not stating his role in article approval in the discussion. I urge any admin reading this to defer judgment until they've both written a bit more about their role in this discussion. I think that Seraphwiki's concern about the quality of sources is well taken, but still his initial statement ought to have mentioned the recent acceptance of the article. Tapered (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My approval of the page at AfD is visable on the article talkpage and in the edit logs. The time between submission amd approval or rejection is 100% irrelevant as we review most pages within a couple days of submission. I clearly stated why I approved the page. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When I'm looking at an AfD, I don't look much at the article's history. Or the creator's Talk page. I look at the references, and the results from the search tools. So I had no idea that the person who approved the article was a commenter—you. Anyone reading your comment ought to have been given that info in a spirit of full disclosure. Tapered (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * looking at who contributed to the page and what is posted on talk are a reasonable part of reviewing a page at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Iamnvna appears to be voting Keep here as well. If she has "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." which is implied by the idea she "charted" she passes NMUSIC as well Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not impressed by "implied" charting or rotations. I'm impressed by demonstrated ones.  I'm also not impressed by the assertion that (for some reason) articles about Ghanian subjects can be sourced by blogs because ... well, because of why, exactly?  Ghana is an English-speaking country with English-language media, with seven print publications that have Wikipedia articles.  If no one's bothered to properly source the subject, then the article can be deleted until such time as someone cares to do it.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A summary of events to date. User:Legacypac—for whatever reason—approved acceptance of an article that almost certainly shouldn't have been accepted. User:SeraphWiki, instead of confronting Legacypac directly—with perhaps a suggestion to backtrack and remove the article for further work—escalated to AfD, without informing potential reviewers that the article had been officially accepted for inclusion less than 24 hours previously. In effect, using negative reviewers as cats paws or stalking horses against Legacypac for the inclusion. Legacypac then waded into the discussion without informing potential reviewers of his involvement in acceptance of the article—and has the unmitigated chutzpah to say that its reviewers' responsibility to investigate the history of the article to do a review, which is especially egregious for this article and its multiple non-reliable sources to be sifted. Reviewers' essential task @ AfD is to evaluate the references and the results from the search tools to evaluate an article's right to exist. Anything else is gravy, above and beyond the call of duty. (And as a former small scale contractor, I just want to say that I'm shocked, simply shocked, that a real estate developer would ever try to evade responsibility for anything!)
 * In the middle of this mishegas is WP:NEWBIE, User:Iamnvna, shell shocked that her recently approved article is now in AfD. In spite of a worthy effort, it still doesn't warrant inclusion. I hope she hangs around to do good work. Tapered (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Tapered your assessment, blame game and personalization of this is inappropriate. I've never seen you before and I'm one of the most active AfC reviewers. This article makes several assertions that clearly meet WP:NMUSIc. Sure the sourcing could be improved, but that is normal editing. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Beginning an article without reliable sourcing is not normal editing. Or perhaps it's normal editing for articles that wind up in AfD. I notice that you complain about my personalization—ie having the nerve to criticize editors for bad behavior—but don't do a point by point rebuttal of my assertions, whereas my criticism—however personal—criticizes yourself and User:SeraphWiki for less than upfront behavior. I was contributing to this without full disclosure on either of your parts. I call that "sneaky," and not really good faith editing. If I made obnoxious remarks about real estate developers, so ban me for 48 hours. Tapered (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have an opinion on the notability and am not particularly interested in going through the sources but as a reviewer and also a patroller I have learnt that notability and opinion on the quality of the sources is a subjective thing. The survival rate for Afc accepted articles is far from 100% and this is because they are accepted by 1 person and not everyone has the same opinion on what passes notability. One thing I will say is that Legacypac is a very thorough and hard working reviewer and has declined way more articles then they have accepted and has helped a very large number of editors to submit high quality articles to the encyclopedia. So thinly veiled ad hominem comments are IMHO out of place here. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And just to add the reviewing process states that we accept an article if it is "likely" to survive a deletion discussion. Without the reviewer process Wikipedia would be flooded with unacceptable articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "...notability and opinion on the quality of the sources is a subjective thing," would seem to make WP:RS and WP:NM way more amorphous and fuzzy than I read them. There are gradations of judgment—I recently commented on an article where ALL of the sources were seemingly reliable but very local, and reserved judgment. The article remained, and I thought that was the correct outcome. I'm vehement about this AfD because the sources really do contravene the reliable sources guidelines. My criticism of the two editors is harsh but not an appeal to emotion, and so not ad hominem. If Legacypac does good work, more power to him, but he ought to have declared his interest in the article up front. His assertion that AfD reviewers need to investigate the history and background of each article is strictly self-defense—and incorrect. That's way too time consuming for most reviews of AfD nominations. If the two editors had been more candid about their actions, this conversation wouldn't be happening, though it's good to learn about Afc. Tapered (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know that even if your stats are very good you do not have a 100% rate in afd discussions. . I don't think it is obligatory to declare anything or to check who did what on the article so I really think that this is a sterile argument. If you believe the article should be deleted then make policy-based arguments as you have done so but unless there is a COI or sockpuppet problem or votestacking I don't understand why it is necessary to dissect the other editors' comments and look for ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Return to draft. I was actually on the verge of closing this based on  the admissible comments (discounting  those that  are personal  attacks). However, after reviewing  the articles and its souces  -  which  a closer is not  forced to  do - I  must  admit  that  the sources do  appear to  be blogs. Blogs are generally  only  accepted when they  are audited content  of established, reliable press, and IMO  these blogs do  not  meet that  description. The subject  is however not  without a strong presumption  of notability which  must  nevertheless be established through  WP:RS. In  view of this therefore, and with  all due respect  for  the nominator  and the original  AfC revierer, I believe this article should be given a chance and at  least  allowed its 6 months in purgatory  for  more sources to  accumulate. The closer has the discretion  to  either do  that or close as 'no consensus', or which I would regret, as 'delete'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The cited sources are digital marketing agencies dedicated to promoting musical artists (ProfileAbility, TalkMediaGhana), blogs (imullar, Loud Sound GH, Motion Hype Gh, Big Times Gh) and download sites (Ghana Music), or otherwise show no evidence of editorial oversight or a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (Unorthodox Reviews [written by the creator of the article], Ghlinks.com, Kuulpeeps, Kwame Sarfo, PlaylistGh.com). Searches of the usual Google types, half a dozen mainstream Ghanian news sites, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, ProQuest, and Questia returned zero reliable sources. With no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not meet any notability guideline. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2018 (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.