Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobi Kukoyi


 * 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. North America1000 09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Tobi Kukoyi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A very confusing one because subject of article is mentioned in a host of Nigeria reliable sources but although mentioned in reliable sources, a further observation & review of all those reliable sources discussing her are in interviews hence not independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy nor adhere to WP:GNG. Furthermore the remaining reliable sources discussing her all appear to be paid sponsored posts or mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE Hello Celestina007 Thanks for your observation. The article has been reviewed. However, most of those interviews appeared to have been conducted by individual journalists, most probably being paid as professionals by their media houses, and so, it is extreme to say they are not independent of her. The use of Aphrodisiac is a very controversial subject in Nigeria, and so it is natural for journalists to make news out of anyone who chooses to venture into it. I disagree that those were paid interviews. That would question the authenticity of the media authorities. Thus meaning that all sources pointed to them should be questioned --ContentBI (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @, any article nominated for deletion is automatically marked as reviewed. When almost all sources discussing her are Q and A interviews then it is most definitely not independent of her. See WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE
 * @, saying 'almost all' clearly shows you haven't read through the references. Also, I can't recall interviews being categorized as dependent sources.


 * @, I don’t get where you are driving at, a Q & A interview is simply not independent of her. How difficult is that to process? And yes almost all sources used are interviews & the rest are press releases & promo sponsored posts. Also see undisclosed paid editing & WP:COI. Because off wiki evidence shows proof of undisclosed paid editing.Celestina007 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Wow! You're even suggesting that I have been paid to upload an article. This is grossly ridiculous! I would appreciate you demonstrating your 1st-class training by uploading my proof of payment. You could also compliment your great observations by having fun adding my signatures.


 * @ Are you suggesting that she practically sent questions to the media houses who interviewed her?! Common! that's ridiculous! The citations you're calling Q & A, were only used in stating her personal bio such as names and schools attended. The majority of references are NOT interviews, they are independent info and have been sourced from different media authorities, which satisfies WP:BASIC. Also, I don't think Wikipedia informs journalists and media houses about how to ensure they give independent reports. If interviews are their strategies, I don't see how it's a problem.


 * @ I am yet to fathom who sponsored the posts, and how you determined that the rest are press releases, all from her.
 * @, I honestly can’t be bothered to continue arguing a very tough topic such as 'sourcing' with an editor who has 'UPE' issues, can’t do basic stuff like WP:SIGN their comments & cannot WP:INDENT properly either. It’s really vapid. WP:BASIC only works when the sources are independent of the subject when the sources are riddled with interviews & sponsored posts. WP:BASIC ceases to apply. Really though, only trained eyes can see through the facade going on in the referencing of that article half are sources not independent of her(interviews) & the rest are sponsored posts(still not independent of her) It’s as simple as that! Celestina007 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Well, I can't see the simplicity in your vague claims. I sourced those references online, and I didn't see a link to any proof of influence from the subject to media houses. Wizardry wasn't part of my training.
 * @ I see that a major part of your training was to delete your comments after they clearly show personal sentiments right? Great job. Just make sure you don't forget adding my signatures, cause I've forgotten how it's done.
 * @, please what comment of mine have I deleted thus far? If you would cast Aspersions be polite enough to provide diffs. Celestina007 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the sources that I could find seemed to be promotional/non-neutral PRs or interviews. Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG.  Java Hurricane  05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep@, If you found reference number 2 and still think the article is sourced from PRs, then you need to read WP:BIO and WP:GNG again. @, Also please, I can understand nominating the article for deletion and stating that it needs external linking. What I don't get is why I'm been accused of being paid to upload an article. @, I consider your accusation as Aspersions and request that you provide an evidence that I might have been paid, or else take out your claims on my article because right now, you're trampling on my reputation.
 * @ always WP:SIGN your comments. Don’t bother @, they understand policy. The sourcing of the article is our main focus here but if you want to talk about UPE, let’s start by the email you just sent me asking me to take a “chill pill” & not pursue the deletion of the article. You also may have unknowingly outed yourself with that e-mail, you may have unknowingly divulged that you operate more than one account. Anyway all that is asides the point. Furthermore if the subject of your article, requires a PR firm(you) to create an article for her on Wikipedia that is really indicative of how non notable she really is. Furthermore please always indent & sign for clarity sake. Celestina007 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ No, you missed it! I sent you an email of which there is absolutely nothing to hide. I said 'take a chill pill', because I can't fathom your aggression towards the topic in question. I noticed the topic had been written initially by a different editor and you nominated it for deletion, on the grounds that it was not a notable figure. So after providing evidences that the topic is notable, and you come up with claims that they are PR, it's normal to think you have a personal bias towards the topic. I never said you should forego policies. I only said that they don't apply to trivial things like names and schools like I earlier stated here. And please, do not claim what I didn't say. I don't know the topic from Adam. I just found it necessary to upload because of the importance of the Aphrodisiac controversy in Nigeria. Period! If you feel good deleting it, do so without making it look like I have a personal attachment. Cause I don't. I'm only concerned about how personal biases affect sincere efforts. ThanksContentBI (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ 2 Aspersions - you're now suggesting that I operate more than 1 account. Pro, please, now you're making me believe I am right suspecting that you have a personal bias. I don't need 2 accounts to spot a draft of a deleted article, please! That's very BASIC! ContentBI (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, I don’t have any bias against nothing. Please stay on topic. The notability & sourcing here is the problem. Bring your best sources here to this AFD & i’d analyze them for you & explain how they do nothing for substantiating notability of the subject of our discussion. Thank you! If you aren’t bringing those sources let me know, because I won’t be replying any of your aspersions or personal attacks anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ There is nothing to analyze. If really you have no personal bias and you paid attention to the introduction, you would observe that the topic's notability is hinged on the controversy of Aphrodisiac in Nigeria, hence reference 2. That major fact shows that the rest of the sources were reactions to that controversy, putting the topic in focus. That's how a real analyst would perceive the article. About aspersions or personal attacks, the last I checked, I wasn't the person indicating that someone else was paid for an edit, and that He has more than 1 account. ContentBI (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

* Keep Moderator please note; I will refer you all to the article topic Uche Pedro. 95% of the citations were sourced from 'bellanaija', which is her owned media firm. Before you consider deleting on the grounds of claimed and unprovable 'sponsored PR', kindly justify how that topic was not based on PR. However, more importantly let me reiterate that there is absolutely no proof that Tobi Kukoyi is an article based on PR, considering the importance of the topic on Aphrodisiac in Nigeria and the many media buzz about it. It's simple. let's all use our preferred search engines. This is just an accusation from an editor who's bias cannot be ascertained either. Notwithstanding, I won't stand against policies, I'm only appealing to fairness. Thanks. ContentBI (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Dear PR firm you can’t !vote a keep more than once. Celestina007 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Sorry pro! At least, I got you to comment again. Owning a PR firm or working for a reputable one is something I'll love. Thanks for the prophecy! ContentBI (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Modertor, please also note my second reference in Linda Ikeji. Majority of the citations done were based on owned media. How doesn't that qualify for 'sponsored PR' but as 'independent source' as my accuser has claimed?. I can go on and on... My point is, those are proven examples, while my article isn't. ContentBI (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, The lady doth protest too much comes into play here folks, If it requires this much badgering of the AFD to prove someone is notable the inverse is invariably the case. Now back to sourcing, from what you said above, which reads “” you can’t use lindaikejiblog because it is a blog & per WP:RS blogs are not reliable & also using the Bella Naija source is pointless because it is a celebrity wedding gossip blog. So what other source do you have for us? You should realize that I have analyzed all sources before nominating this article & I came to the same conclusion as u|JavaHurricane. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Do you realize you're obviously proving your sentiments on this matter? You're talking about the blogs without questioning their relationships with the persons in topic. Who owns bellanaija? Who owns Linda Ikeji? Does it make policy-sense to you that they are considered 'independent sources' in articles about their CEOs?. Are you saying I should wait for whenever Tobi Kukoyi starts a blog I can cite before we know she is notable? Listen, it's my article and as an editor, I am concerned about my contribution being thrown into the wind because someone thinks it's a PR job. Can you just 'take a chill pill' and allow others react? I responded to javahurricane, and I don't see how you're His fingers. If the moderator finally thinks the article isn't suitable, that's fine! I just need a solid explanation in relation with my examples, not some poorly thought out claims. ContentBI (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Once again you go off topic whenever you are asked to provide sources to this AFD that proves her notability. look! when or if you bring to this AFD, the sources that are independent of her & aren’t sponsored posts nor press release(s) nor blog sources. Do let me know because from what you have just said above you clearly do not understand policy. Celestina007 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Ofcourse, you'd call them 'off-topic' because you have no defense on them. If independent articles from journalists, working in reputable newspapers, as cited are not enough to state the notability of the topic, then I have nothing to prove to you. Do with it as you please. I don't care.ContentBI (talk)
 * So are you providing this reliable sources or what? Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

https://daylightng.com/tobi-kukoyi-set-to-tow-the-film-path/


 * @ I just spotted this. That's also PR, right? ContentBI (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @, it lacks editorial oversight so it’s unreliable! Thank you! Celestina007 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ I'm literally chuckling on my seat. Nice! Well done! ContentBI (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ I think you really need to learn the ropes about how journalists work, especially in Nigeria. It'd help your sense of judgment. ContentBI (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ So, my friend, you've made me take out time to research more on the journalists whose articles I cited. I searched them up on LinkedIn, and I am more convinced that with their pedigree, there is almost no chance that those articles were sponsored. You may want to look up these names your self - Chuks Nwanne, Ige Rotimi and Gbenga Bada, just to ensure that you're not mistaken a crowded buzz based on coincidence for a paid PR. I don't see how a journalist with 12 years' experience would focus on projecting a non-notable figure for money. It doesn't add up. ContentBI (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier when you provide to this AFD non self published sources, non sponsored posts sources, non press release material & non-churnalism sources & the lot of those type of sources currently present in that article please do let me know. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Well, at this point, it is obvious you have just made up your mind to frustrate my efforts, if you can't do a simple check. The qualification of the references on that article as churnalism is absolutely based on your sentiments, and since you're the god of references, feel free to delete whenever you wish. I was just trying to add my little quota on a category I felt was hardly explored, but at this point, I'm done trying to make the blind see, + I don't give two monkies what happens with the article anymore. Enjoy! ContentBI (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please read and understand WP:COIEDIT. It doesn't matter if you are paid to write an article or not, if you have a COI you should not edit an article. Plain and simple. Your ranting is not helping your case. I do not know what sources are considered reliable in Nigeria, but please keep your argument succinct. Give links to the articles you think satisfy WP:RS and leave it at that. Do not engage in arguments. Make your case and move on. - Harsh (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ The thing is, I can't understand why everyone is trying to bully me into accepting there is a WP:COIEDIT issue. For crying out loud, THERE ISN'T! I AM NOT PAID!!!!. I really wish I am! It's exasperating, and that's why I am not making headway with @. It's simple, If you can recognise the fact that in the article's introduction, it claims the topic is an authority on the controversy around aphrodisiac in Nigeria known as 'kayanmata'. It wouldn't be an issue accessing the following links from the article;


 * https://thenigerian.news/why-women-have-taken-up-the-kayan-mata-aphrodisiac/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/aug/14/men-said-we-were-immoral-aphrodisiacs-challenging-taboos-nigeria
 * https://nnn.com.ng/kayan-mata-divergent-views-trail-trending-sale-of-aphrodisiacs/
 * https://www.pulse.ng/lifestyle/food-travel/should-you-be-using-kayan-mata-products/nfmpeh7
 * https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/aug/14/men-said-we-were-immoral-aphrodisiacs-challenging-taboos-nigeria
 * https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/naija-fashion/391009-interview-why-kayanmata-isnt-fetish-traditional-sex-therapist-tobi-kukoyi.html

It wouldn't be difficult to understand the controversy in question and why journalists would rally around her.

But unfortunately, everyone is busy trying to insist that ContentBI was paid to write an article! Gush! I'm tired!!! ContentBI (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Or is it difficult to understand because there is no article on 'kayanmata'? I can help the community with that, if it would aid comprehension ContentBI (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Although a daunting task, I needed to create the table so our colleagues could see clearly what I was talking about. In summary the subject of our discussion fails to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — Alright look below at the analysis of the sources you provided to this AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Great job! You're very hardworking! But this was absolutely unnecessary. I never claimed the article directly identifies her, I only insinuated that it established 'kayanmata' as a controversial topic, and thus, should justify why the reports done on 'Tobi Kukoyi' wouldn't be a paid PR. It is logical for journalist to snoop around anyone associated with controversial topics. That is all I have been trying to make you understand for the past 2 days! If the community thinks it's not enough, I rest my case. Go ahead and delete it. ContentBI (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've revoked ContentBI's (the creator of this page) editing privileges for the spamming. MER-C 17:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't seem like a spam article to me and I'm usually pretty bullish about being against spam. Ultimately, I'm going with delete because the sourcing just isn't there to make the subject notable. Which can be seen in all the discussions about sources and the table created by Celestina007. Which I'm guessing was a pain to do but makes a difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per comprehensive analysis above from – sources are PROMO and no real GNG from RS is apparent.  Looks like PAID. Britishfinance (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per source analysis. No alternative reliable sources that I can find; failing WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2020 (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.