Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titi Kuti


 * 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 no consensus. Two relists with zero additional input, and I don't anticipate a third changing that. No prejudice against a renom at a time where you believe there might be more engagement Star   Mississippi  02:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Titi Kuti

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Hasn't had any significant roles in notable films or television series. Is reliant on primary sources and unreliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete — NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple movies or TV series, The actor is predominantly known for their “bit part roles” in both the movie titled “King of Boys” (the movie), and King of Boys (the TV series), of which in both movie and TV series they weren’t the lead role, they weren’t supporting actor, their roles are honestly best described as “bit part” . Furthermore they haven’t been given any prestigious awards for their acting, i am indeed doubtful they have ever received and prestigious award. I’d like to see the input of the article creator who removed the prod on the article, citing that NACTOR is met, I’d love to hear their rationale as how this is so. Celestina007 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to bite or sound so angry. Now, I'm not the author of the article or the one who removed the prod, but glancing at the article and a few of its sources, I can see an argument that WP:GNG may have been met, as surprisingly, there are multiple articles listed expressly about this person in the role you labeled as a bit part.  Even if WP:NACTOR is not met, WP:GNG would trump.  The question I have though, is whether the sources are RELIABLE sources.  I have no idea about the reliability or relevance of any of these sources.  Could you (or someone) assess that? Fieari (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you please retract your aspersions? I consider aspersions a personal attack, you accused me of BITING when I have been nothing but civil with the editor who created this article, please which part of what I just said above is “Biting” ? I made factual statements which are all corroborated easily. In-fact look at our civil conversation I am very much offended by your aspersions against me, furthermore you stated that I “sounded angry”, which i found strange as “tone” can’t be interpreted over text, i was literally relaxed & laying on my sofa without an iota of anger or frustration when making those comments. I’m offended by this aspersions because I put in very conscious efforts to be polite and simultaneously precise/concise when interacting with my co-editors, Please can you be so gracious as to retract your aspersions or in the very least apologize, for assuming wrongly? Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking this to your talk page to not clutter here. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep — NACTOR also requires significant roles in multiple TV series or other productions. The actor is also a producer. According to "NACTOR", he must have had significant roles in multiple productions, which includes, his production for Africa Magic, reality show "Nigerian Idol", and Africa Magic television series "Hustle", starring Sola Sobowale. A reliable source from Vanguard Nigeria, confirms the statement above. I believe with this, NACTOR is met.--Afí-afeti (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — This is to note that the editor above is the article creator. They produced this Vanguard source which is unreliable as the byline is missing “the staff reporter” which invariably means we are dealing with an opinion piece which we do not consider reliable. Generally, when dealing with articles on business people, organizations or entertainers or any topic area which may be prone to less than ethical practices, we want to see reliable sources being optimized. Can this reliable sources be brought here for thorough analysis? In the very least at least three good sources that satisfy WP:RS & are in accordance with WP:GNG I’m afraid, If not, it is my opinion that this is a NACTOR fail. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep with no prejudice toward the nom as this is a very close call. He appears to have a regular role on a notable show but the debate above is about NACTOR and needing multiple notable roles by that guideline, with the rebuttal that he's been a producer in other things.  So I'm left with looking at the broader general notability guidelines and there I find that this article's subject has himself been the non-trivial subject of multiple (in this case exactly 2) reliable secondary sources, the Guardian and Vanguard.  So he only barely passes general notability, but a D is indeed a passing grade. -Markeer 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment —, Hello MKR, as stated on my TP that I wouldn’t comment here except expressly pinged, I’ve been deeply troubled since I made that statement(I would expatiate on this below) the apple of discord here is for any editor to bring forward sources, please can you be so kind as to show me the sources you found, the truth is, In as much as I try to ignore this AFD or comment any further, I have this huge feeling of guilt that an article that falls short of both NACTOR & GNG would be retained on mainspace due to honest mistakes on the part of editors unfamiliar with Nigerian sources(I am an expert on this) I am troubled because as a Nigerian(well I’ve lived here for 20+ years now) & I know as a matter of fact that the subject we are currently discussing doesn’t satisfy both NACTOR and GNG, MKR, I would be extremely grateful if you can show me the sources you found so I can do a source analysis. This isn’t an attempt to make you change your !vote, no, rather it is an attempt for me to do a source analysis on the sources you found and if you stick with your !vote that is indeed your prerogative and I would speak no more, all I’m begging for at the moment is a chance to do a analysis for you on sources you said you saw and as aforementioned if you stick to your !vote, in the spirit of consensus I would bow out, all I’m asking for from you or any editor to bring all the sources that substantiate their notability & as aforementioned, a chance to do a source analysis for everyone to see, I would draw up a source analysis table and assess each source presented. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I published the article on mainspace, you moved it to draft in quote, you stated "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." I obliged to that, by making sure it was rewritten, please note: The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject, without the help of these interviews, which are been published by reliable sources. Also, I will love to bring to your attention, the article was submitted through AfC for review as requested by you. As stated above, I'm also bringing to your attention, the AfD was nominated for failing the requirements of "WP:NACTOR", this is the debate. It all said, it clearly meets this. In WP:Interviews, it states "it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts", this was what I did in the article. Remember the article is a "Stub". WP:Interviews are accepted for WP:GNG, if only it been published by a reliable source.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @“, First of all this comment by you: “” is not supported by any policy here, and generally isn’t a factual statement, investigative journalism would be in variance with that wrong assertion. Let’s keep that aside, & focus on policy; GNG requires independence from the subject & Interviews are not independent of the subject thus they do not meet GNG, they can be used to verify certain trivial facts just as how WP:VENDOR's work, but it can’t be used to substantiate major notability claims, and this is also stated in Interviews, please see this information. Lastly, I didn’t state that is auto generated message, although my draftification generated it. As I said in my TP and here also, I do not want to bludgeon, and would only return if I was pinged to do a source analysis, i was pinged & I have done a source analysis. The rest is left for the community to decide, my work here is done. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Source Check Request - I don't think there's any need to bow out of commenting on this AfD... we're all here to build an encyclopedia, I think we're all okay now, and I believe your insight would be valuable.  I see on your user page that Nigerian sources can be... complicated... with regards to reliability.  Could I formally ask you to review the other sources on this page in this light?  Specifically:
 * PM News Nigeria - If (and only if) this is a reliable source, this is a strong indicator of WP:GNG as it is an article expressly about the actor in question in far more than a passing mention. It also has a byline, unlike the vanguard source you checked above.
 * The Guardian - This is a similar kind of article as the PM News one, expressly about the subject in detail. It has a byline.
 * Daily Trust (archived) - Another interview article with a byline as above.
 * Bella Naija - I think I can already see just by looking at it that this isn't a reliable source.
 * I'm not claiming that I think these are reliable sources, I'm asking... are they? How can we tell?  Thank you. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , great. you have cited 4 sources and I’d analyze them accordingly, let me start by referencing the first source briefly before we delve into the crux of analysis, now, contrary to what you think, it is indeed a reliable source but that piece is unreliable, let’s begin the analysis, is credible but an unreliable piece, because it is literally based on an interview on a different platform, a portion of that piece reads, the piece literally relied on an interview, and interviews aren’t independent of the subject thus doesn’t count towards notability the is is at best now a WP:QS, see one of the reasons here and even worse still, it is an interview thus doesn’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject which is required by WP:GNG. the is an interview thus can’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject. GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and that piece falls short of the standard requirement. As for the fourth and , you are apt. it is a gossip blog which is pretty much self published, lacks editorial oversight and has no reputation for fact checking, a huge fail of RS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are interviews really excluded from establishing notability? There's editorial control over who they interview, after all.  The selection of questions, the editing, and the context they provide all seem like things that could establish notability. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of a subject, an interview is not independent of the subject thus is in variance with a core aspect of what constitutes notability as detailed in WP:GNG which requires absolute "independence" Do you get the drift? An interview is not independent in the sense that the editorial is publishing a literal interaction with the subject. Having said, let me expressly state that interviews are not without use, You see, Interviews are treated in the same manner we treat primary sources, that is, they can be used to verify information that is relatively trivial such as age, full name, college attended and things along those lines, they however do not count towards notability but only serve predominantly to satisfy WP:V When it comes to claims of notability we discard primary sources and employ or make use use of WP:IS. Furthermore to comprehend what I’m saying better look at Interviews. Like I stated, elsewhere I wouldn’t bludgeon the the AFD process, and except I was pinged to do a source analysis I wouldn’t comment anymore. I believe I have just done so, thus my work here is done. I did this analysis not to make you change your mind nor that of anyone else but to show everyone that the sources are very unreliable in this context. If you need me to expatiate please ping me. On a lighter note, Did you ask how I can tell reliable sources from unreliable sources? was my tutor at NPP academy, I learnt from the best  Celestina007 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , looking at 's link to Interviews, you'll see it's got an interesting section on Notability. Basically it comes down to this: you need to decide whether the interviewee sought out the interviewer, or vice versa. If the interviewee managed to wangle themselves a TV interview, it means nothing (except they've got a big wallet or a good agent). If the TV station independently, and without encouragement from the subject, decided the interviewee was worth interviewing, this supports their notability. But even so, the interview is a poor source for actual information, so unless there's some other source available, we find ourselves suspecting that someone's notable, but having nothing reliable we can say about them. I'm grateful for input from those who, like @Celestina, know the local sources and their attitudes to paid-for interviews. Don't get me started on paid-for award-nominations! Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete excluding interviews and churnalism, which don't count for notability, there is not enough independent coverage to write an article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.