Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Kulture


 * 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   keep. On the "Keep" side, we have multiple examples of coverage in the Nigerian press. I must confess to not being an expert on Nigerian newspapers, but to my eyes they appear to be reputable publications and I don't see any reason they'd not be considered as reliable sources. On the other hand, many of the "Delete" votes are not rooted in policy, including a case of "just not notable", a couple of slights against the article creator that do not address the article itself, and one that has been withdrawn and changed to neutral. Given the relative strengths of the arguments, I think this one has to be given to the "Keep" side. Note that such a decision does not preclude improvement to the neutrality and tone of the article, nor is it an endorsement of any particular revision of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Terra Kulture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After an in-depth review of this promotional article, I discovered that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG. The sources provided are not independent reliable sources but spam links. Reference 1 is a spam link whose content are If you love amazing foods and extraordinary arts, visit Terra Kulture Food Lounge. Situated in Plot 1376, Tiamiyu Savage, Off Ahmadu Bello Way, Victoria Island, Lagos. Reference 2 is another spam link, the source is not what I will consider a WP:RS, meanwhile the website included their address (Address: 65b coker road, ilupeju, lagos) and phone number Email: sabinews@sabinews.com Tel: 08023021821, 08033054618 an indication that the subject must have paid for the advert on that web. The google book provided is garbage, not even a mention of the subject in the book. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable restaurant. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Note to closing admin: The article was recently deleted by per WP:CSD. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - it has always looked dubious to me, as do many of the same contributor's other articles. I do not think this is a case of paid editing but it appears to be part of a promotional campaign.Deb (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * am not insinuating that the article creator here was paid, but I mean the publisher of reference 2. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood what you meant. I just wanted to give a view that the article creator, although editing in good faith, is trying to publicise businesses in his/her home area and does not seem to understand that this constitutes promotion. Deb (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (change: Neutral: see comments below.) Creator doesn't seem to understand WP:TRAVELGUIDE and that merely being included on travel guides does not confer notability. Sources are all promotional, and unless they come up with some others then unfortunately there's nothing that can be done.LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did come here to strike my comment. The creator has made some attempt to source the article, and it has got a number of sources that are indicative of the wider notability claimed by others here. The Kaye Whiteman book looks promising, but Google Books obviously doesn't have the full version. Promotional language can be changed - can change the wording to represent why the centre is covered in the sources rather than just implying notability through the promotion of its decor. I'll have a go at cutting out some of the offending wording; then ES can use that as a skeleton to prove why the centre is notable. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt at pruning the overt promotionalism and presenting the available material in a way which might help prove notability. If the book reference that I've placed on the article talk page could be checked for what it says about Terra Kulture, we might have a viable article; getting into a print source might be harder to achieve just through routine operations, so that's interesting (although the search terms were for a 'Bagatelle' establishment - ?interpretation of that term is hard without context). But the rest of the sources were promotional (e.g. flyers for performances of works by notable writers - I don't think these make the venue automatically notable itself), so I had to be a little ruthless. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unstruck comment. As it stands, I think the article is borderline. It needs more expansion to be a truly notable article; I only removed promotional language but as has been said, I think it needs expansion from the relevant sources to definitively prove notability. I'd appreciate it if other people in the discussion did not speak for me at this point. The article is not finished to the point where I'd consider changing the vote. Since the person who struck my vote is involved in this discussion on the keep side, I find it a little presumptuous that he assumed I'd actually changed my mind and decided to Keep the article. As it happens, I will change to neutral to avoid confusion, but in future, perhaps that person would respect the nuances of other people's comments a bit better. If I'd have felt confident in striking the comment, then I would have struck it when I posted last night. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep per WP:IMPACT. The institution is notable for it's role in Nigeria and in promoting the Nigerian/African culture. Being a cultural promotion organization should have nothing to do with the article being promotional. I was not paid to edit this article. I have only tried to contribute to Wikipedia by including information for readers. After the article was deleted on the basis of being promotional in nature by Deb. I contacted him and addressed the issues warranting deletion by removing all promotional contents. Compared to other articles of the same topic, category and stub class, it is not a travel guide. The references used in citing the article are diverse of which most are reliable third party sources and not all are promotional in nature or from travel guides. Regarding the references with spam links, they will be removed. Any other suggestion towards improving the article is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC).
 * No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment The two references with spam links have been removed from the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That has not address the issue! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment @Wikic¤l¤gy, On what basis is the article not notable? There's no rationale behind your statement. The issue here is on finding reliable third party sources and significant coverage about the article alone in the media to establish notability. All references to travel guides have been removed from the list per WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's important to Nigerian culture and the promotion thereof, and thus notable, there will usually be sources in mainstream newspapers, for example a major daily newspaper or its website. The interview is just someone trying to promote herself by speaking to a website; it's not the website or publication exploring her work independently of the creator. The key word here is independent - what is notable on our terms is that independent sources have covered the org without them submitting copy themselves - that is, those not controlled by the subject or written from sources they provide (such as press releases or superficial interviews with the creator). Then - and only then - will the organisation be notable by Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:Reliable sources, which tells you what counts and what doesn't count. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is just a passing mention as well - it doesn't confer notability simply for being mentioned; the sources need to discuss Terra Kulture in depth without being either paid to do so or just highlighting interesting places in Lagos. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding LouiseS1979's observation: Although some of the published sources especially from the newspapers might look promotional in nature. On a closer scrutiny, they really aren't. The Foreign media is generally quite different from our local media here in Nigeria! Eruditescholar (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Swpb. I'm really sorry but how have I not acted in good faith? Eruditescholar (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Bazj (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikicology and Deb. Eruditescholar is not acting in good faith, and has demonstrated that they have no interest in what is best for the encyclopedia. This article is merely the latest example of that longstanding pattern. —Swpbtalk 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not sure if all these people voting delete actually bothered to search for "Terra Kulture" on google, before making decisions. Well, I did and apparently, the subject is well covered in many notable news sites. There are many links talking about this firm (or whatever it is) partnering with people, or associating with something. More importantly, there are indepth articles solely talking about "Terra Kulture", which include: The Nation Newspaper, The Punch Newspaper, Pulse, This Day Newspaper, The Guardian Newspaper, CP Africa, Connect Nigeria....and many others on the web. I haven't gone through the article, so I don't know how it's written. I've also just spot checked the arguments here.....but if anything, this subject obviously doesn't fail WP:GNG, as the nominator claims! Maybe it needs to be copyedited and cleaned up, but it shouldn't be deleted as it is notable enough. You don't dispute a subject's notability based on the references present in it's article, but by making a quick search yourself. An article may be poorly written, but if it's notable! It's notable!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All the sources you provided is only an evidence that the restaurant exist and not an evidence that it meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Nothing in all the references you provided (from A to Z) is outside the 10th years anniversary. Your reference 2 and reference 7 are almost the same content, still about the 10th years anniversary. Been published for celebrating 10th years anniversary is not enough to merit a page on wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the topic of the articles are, or whether they are writing because of the subject's anniversary or not. What matters is that the articles "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", just as it is stipulated in the guideline. No news outlet would write about an insignificant firm celebrating ten years. Infact, this subject, as it stands fails no single criterion in WP:GNG....shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. There's also a strong indication that the firm might have over the years been covered in many journals and magazines not available online, for its ten years celebration to be covered so widely.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh! non-admin close to keep it, if you are in the best position to decide which articles should be nominated for deletion. A consensus here will decide weather it is suitable for inclusion. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: per Tubers. I also think Eruditescholar has been unfairly judged here. He is only trying to improve Lagos visibility by creating articles for the most popular (and notable) destinations, he needs to be advised on how to go about it but not being discouraged for it. Terra Kulture has been well covered and notable in Nigeria for years. Darreg (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant coverages in multiple reliable sources outside the 10th years Anniversary should demonstrate its notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article is based on multiple, independent reliable sources. It passes GNG. It is about a significant, nationally known cultural site. There is no evidence to support allegations of paid editing or a promotional campaign. AGF. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy new year, ! Please don't misunderstand other editors here, I don't think its a good practice. However, If you read the previous comments of various editors carefully, you will agree that nobody accused any editor of paid editing. Per the article in question, I can't find the significant coverages in WP:RS that assert the subject notability to meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – OK, I will accept that. But I have looked at the articles created by Eruditescholar and I am not seeing any problems. We have another editor who is creating 200 articles on Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands. Those articles have links to the official websites and the official websites have telephone numbers. That shouldn't be an issue. The only issue should be whether the subject is notable and covered by RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are getting it right here! The issue is not about Eruditescholar but one or more of their promotional articles. Reviewing process involve checking through the page history as well, which am sure you never did for this article before your comments. You are likely not to find any promotional tone or content in the article in its current state because it has been significantly modified. Please note that commenting at AfD involves proper analysis of the subject matter and core understanding of the basic wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Actually I did look at the history. I looked at the links from the first version and found the mention in the Google book ("cultural meeting-places") that escaped the nom. I understand the feeling here, and I'm aware that many editors on Wikipedia take an extremely hard line on "promotional". But I think it's unfair to hold the author responsible for any praise of the subject that may be found on a cited webpage. We should look at the language in the article. I also think the argument for excluding 10th anniversary stories about the subject is grasping at straws. What is the policy rationale for that? – Margin1522 (talk)
 * Comment - I think we've been very lenient with the creator of this article so far. When does he intend to make the necessary improvements to the article by amending the (still very POV) wording of the main paragraph?  Or can he not see that a statement like "Terra Kulture is a place for the lovers of African culture" is both promotionally-worded and unsupported by any independent source?  Deb (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm fine with objections to the wording or tone. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." WP:G11. "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." WP:ARTSPAM I think there is room for compromise here.  If the sources are to be believed, the art gallery has held 200 exhibitions over the past 10 years and the restaurant hosts readings by leading writers, among other related activities. It looks to me like more than a non-notable restaurant. That's my honest analysis of the subject matter. As for the core policies, see the two links above. Deletion is not the only solution. Are we any closer to consensus with the current version? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the creator has been given rather a lot of time to make these improvements and does not appear to be doing so, or even to understand what the problem is. If one of the supporters of keeping the article would do the work for him, that might resolve the issue - otherwise I would have to assume that the article cannot be salvaged. Deb (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a gutting of the article last night, but one of the Keep voters moved the section above so you may not have seen it. I don't think it's notable yet - until we can find a good source, e.g. the Kaye Whiteman book to which I don't have access, but I think I helped solve the promotional language. However, if notability can't be established, then I'd still be in the Delete camp. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I strongly agree wit Deb. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been offline since last year and only recently came back online to improve the article yesterday despite my busy schedule. It might seem like I abandoned the article but I have to be careful with the editing. I added more information about the center with citations and LouiseS1979 assisted with editing by rearranging, removing contents and citations already added. There's no doubt that there's a lot of reliable third-party sources about the center but having to pick and choose from diverse "promotional" and "non-promotional" sources poses a slight challenge. This is coupled with the fact that information required for the article about the center comes from these varied sources. There's surely room for improvement and any contribution towards improving the article is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, it might be a good idea to make sure the Kaye Whiteman source mentions the centre in the sort of detail required and work it into the article. I can't go any further with expansion without that book being established as a reliable source. Please hold off on adding any more websites repeating the glowing, promotional praise of the centre for the moment - we don't need more of those; they don't discuss the actual impact of the centre, but are simply advertising it, which was the original problem with the article. I'll leave them in, but what is needed are better sources, not more sources. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the already existing sources should be able to support the article without the Kaye Whiteman source and other excluded sources online. I'm sure there are other reliable offline and online sources which I might have no knowledge about. I'm confident of a gradual improvement to the article as it's a work in progress.Eruditescholar (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear you don't understand that mainspace is not the appropriate location for a "work in progress" unless it is written with the wikipedia guidelines in mind. You must observe the NPOV guideline, which is one of the 7 pillars of wikipedia and the only one which can't be changed by editor consensus.Deb (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a good understanding of what you mean but what I am implying is that this article should demonstrate enough notability in it's current state to avoid deletion. I am well aware of many stub articles that are still in the public domain with less citations and information compared to this one. I also know some articles that were created as stubs and have progressed to B or A class in the quality scale. I'm not an advocate for stub articles but I'm just being realistic here. Eruditescholar (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * : Generally speaking, 'other stuff exists' is not a good rationale to use; if you think there are non-notable stubs out there you can always bring them here to AFD. To be frank, I'm bowing out now. This is for an uninvolved admin to decide whether or not the article satisfies notability if you are unable to improve it further - it's out of our hands. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for your advice. I'm making efforts to expand the stub article and will continually make encyclopaedic contributions to improve the article Eruditescholar (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, look, sincerely here: good luck. If it sticks around, I'll keep it on my watchlist. That art business source is exactly the sort of thing the article needed to give it a boost, IM still-learning O. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a chapter on the founder in the book The "Girl" Entrepreneurs  and is largely about Terra Kulture.  Although written in the first person, still, it is significant that the editor thought she was notable enough to include.  There is also a chapter on Terra Kulture in the book Women of Valour: Jewels of the future .  Although only snippet view, it is clearly a substantial piece and may be more acceptable as a reliable source.  Those, together with the numerous passing mentions is book sources lead me to believe that this is a notable institution.  SpinningSpark 20:59, 4 January 2015 (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.