Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo Rapetsoa


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Neo Rapetsoa

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

Paid editor has repeatedly bypassed AFC process and moved to main space against all advice. Non notable fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR with only minor roles. WP:TOOSOON applies. Draft says she appears in The Queen (South African TV series) and Generations: The Legacy but they are not mentioned in those articles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Theroadislong, I took all the suggestions that the other editors gave me including yours. I disclosed that I was paid to write the article and put the disclosures on my user page and article talk page (using the template). I also removed the sources and references that I was suggested to remove. Please look at the references 4,5,6 and 16- They mention that she joined the television shows The Queen and Generations: The Legacy (the articles mention the roles that she plays and it briefly describes them, with mention of her name).
 * In regards to her not having done substantial work, I'd like to argue that this year is her breakthrough year and if an article that proves that entertainers have done a certain amount of work (even if it is just one or three projects) they should be able to stay as articles. To make it easier for other contributors to add to their articles because if an entertainers article is deleted because they've only been involved in 5 projects. Then it means that a new article will have to be created when they have done 10 projects and that the contributor has to start from scratch. When it could be easier if an article is already there and it is developed to add the other (new) works.
 * Thank you Alien Superstar (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 16 is now No. 7 after my recent edit. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot @ColinFine @199.208.172.35 @Victor Schmidt I would like to invite all the editors who previously made suggestions including @Theroadislong to please review the article. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the AfD side of Wikipedia. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON, and you should have either gone through AfC or waited until after her breakthrough year to try to push your client into mainspace. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theroadislong In regards to bypassing the articles for creation process I apologise. If you look at my talk page, I once requested a peer review of the article. My other attempts at requesting the help of other editors with the article have been at Wikipedia Teahouse. I will look through your suggestions to help me improve my contributions. Alien Superstar (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Africa.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete If it was up to me, I'd ban any paid editing. That said, she isn't notable yet so not at GNG. I hope you refund her money at least. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The South African is the best source, she's got coverage over meme's she's posted about feminine menstrual issues, I'd not call it RS. I don't even see that the role she has is a major part of the series, ACTOR isn't met. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b I see that the major reason you want the article to be deleted is because I'm a paid editor. I do think that your disdain for paid editing should not make you overlook that all facts that have been mentioned can be verified by sources that meet the reliable sources guidelines. Internet personalities can get mentioned in articles for the things they post including pranks if it is their niche; I don't think articles always have to be about hard news to be considered RS.
 * Regarding NP: NACTOR, I've said before that I think even if an entertainer has done minimum work, their article should be allowed to stay for other contributors to develop it. Or at the very least it should be reduced to a stub. Alien Superstar (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She doesn't meet the notability requirements, we don't park things here until they are notable. Pranks or not, we need extensive coverage in reliable sources, unrelated to the subject. It really doesn't matter what your talent or skill is, if there is no coverage, we can't have an article here. Show us stories about her in broadly distributed forms of media, that are more than simple mentions. I can't find any and you haven't provided any either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and the photo appears to be a copyvio, it's reproduced elsewhere and uploaded here by a red-linked uploader, with no evidence of their own work submitted to OTRS. all kinds of red flags here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b References: 1,5,6,7 & 13 offer coverage solely about the subject. Alien Superstar (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b I uploaded the image & I just removed it after the notice you put up. Alien Superstar (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations are serious, please respect them. I'd suggest you read the multiple help pages on wikipedia and listen to them and the advice given before contributing anything further. It keeps this place safe and functional. Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop treating me like a vandalizer, if I was I would not ask editors questions to learn. Also the picture was provided to me by employer and I was granted permission to use it and they were given permission by client so I did not violate any copyrights. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then there is a process (the OTRS) through which you can submit proof of authorship and giving permission to use it here; this generally applies when the uploader is not the author of the photograph. We simply need to verify that the author of the work in question has given permission for it to be used freely, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. I'm not entirely familiar with the process, but we have many editors who'd be happy to help! Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Due to WP:Promotion and the subject not meeting NBIO. As background, the paid editor who created the article was advised to go through AfC rather than moving it to mainspace again, but unfortunately ignored that advice. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ● Keep Due to references     having in-depth coverage about the subject. I (paid editor) admit my mistake and should have submitted the article for review before moving it to main space. I should have thoroughly read the Afc article instead of only enquiring on teahouse and on the article's talk page about assistance. I will consider all suggestions moving forward. Alien Superstar (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrsSnoozyTurtle Hi, after you moved the article to draft the first time I asked you to clarify your reasons for moving it and you did not respond. Your reasons were COI and Notability and I have addressed that. Alien Superstar (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 are somewhat extensive, 3, 4 and 5 are basically photo essays. Unsure if the first two meet RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Alien Superstar. It is actually this warning that I am referring to: . Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So he was warned, did it, warned again, and still did it? Incredible. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b my pronouns are not he/him, I think its best to stick to they/them when addressing people who have not made their pronouns clear. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, sorry. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle I see what you're referring to, thanks. I thought a review was the same thing as moving an article to main space. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you thought that this warning of "...if you move it to main space again you are likely to be blocked" meant it was ok to move it back to mainspace again? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that "you can submit the article for review" was the same as moving it to main space because other editors could review it. But I learned its not the same thing. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood the use of the word "likely" as "might happen" meaning that there is a 50/50 chance that some editors can be fair while others immediately X paid editors because of their own reasons. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's the problem with Savanna News as a source: from the "About us" page: "Disclaimer: The opinion of journalists and writers for Savannanews.com is not necessarily shared by Savanna Media (Pty) Limited." This reads to me like the writers are free-lancers and the site does not have editorial oversight. Editorial oversight is something we look for in reliable sources. I also don't find a mention of an editorial board nor staff writers. When looking at individual articles with a by-line, and clicking on the by-line, some of the writers have email addresses at the site's address, but multiple others are given the email "admin@savannanews.com". I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the site, I'm saying that the information to confirm it as a reliable source is not there. If such information exists, then we can consider it a good source. Lamona (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to discount it if we have better sources; we don't, so it's an iffy pass. On the balance, I'm still not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Lamona thank you for your comment. I looked at other publications namely: Briefly and The South African  to compare them with savanna news and found that South African online publications are similar. News sites have parent companies and they all have a set of author's that regularly write stories for the publications. I would assume that if the website puts their names on it; they work routinely meaning it could be possible they are not just freelancers. Alien Superstar (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we had another source like that, it would help notability standards here. There isn't quite enough, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The sources are of very poor quality and don't seem to be reliable or SIGCOV. It's going to need higher quality sources and I am having difficulty finding these online. And here's a reminder: the internet contains an incredible amount of information, but if we're going to write articles about every person we're able to verify exists and has a minor magazine appearance, then our notability guidelines might not be in very good shape. Nythar  (💬-🎃) 09:27, 15 November 2022 (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.