Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reno Omokri

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. Although many of the sources do not pass WP:RS or only have trivial coverage, there is some significant coverage in the Punch sources. In addition, the subject seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN #1, and there appears to be slightly more support for "keep" than "delete" among the !voters. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Omokri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability shown, all 4 refs mention Omokri in passing only. The GNews hits also only mention him in passing. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote to keep this article. I will grant that it is not well written, in that it lacks some basic information on Omokri. It has very little biographical info. Also, it would be nice to know more specifically what this person wrote and more references would be nice. However, given what Mr. Omokri has done, I think notability has been established. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How is it shown? What sources support that statement? GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the author of the page and I have added more references to establish notability.

--Etauso (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability has been established to the point of overkill! Subject has a countrywide high office, has notoriety in the Nigerian media, is respected in the U.S. enough to warrant his opinions being sought by two major DC Think tanks and there are multiple sources where his views have been sought for publication in the Nigerian media. I Followed conversation in the other thread as suggested by one contributor here. It appears there is a personal investment on the part of the nominator of this article and he's trying to prove a point.naijacicero (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unfortunately, all the refs added are not reliable sources. They are either self-published by Omokri or social media or both. None does anything to establish notablity. GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's no verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-No, that is not true. I referenced articles that featured (not in passing) Omokri as a notable political influencer from Thisday Newspaper which is one of the most reputable newspapers in Africa and The Punch which is Nigeria's largest selling paper as well as an interview with Think Africa Press, a British news media focusing on Africa. I also referenced articles criticizing Omokri by Penguin Award Winner and Professor of the Institute of African Studies, Carleton University, Pius Adesanmi. I would have referenced one of his many short films but Wikipedia forbids YouTube links, however, the short films are referenced on his Think Africa interview. None of the articles are published by Omokri, some are OpEd pieces which are quite different from self publishing and which reflect notability as papers don't publish OpEds carelessly. Plus, he has featured at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council. One doesn't get 40k followers on twitter and almost 30k on Facebook if you are not known. The Gnews hits are focused on him rather than just mentioning him in passing and I urge someone else to please verify this. Moreover, he is the founder/pastor of a Christian Center that has an on ground presence and a facebook following of over 30k. In conclusion, believe I established notability by showing that the subject occupies a high office as a Presidential aide, influences political events with his writings and talks, affects culture by the short films he makes and his opinions are weighty enough to be requested by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council.--Etauso (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the last refs added have the same problem. Trivial mention in ThisDay - both articles, I don't understand how you can claim it "featured" Omokri when one of the articles mention him exactly one time. ThinkAfrica is self-published and not reliable (and it doesn't matter if it is an OpEd, it is still WP:SPS). SaharaReporters is not a reliable source, publishing the work of registered users without apparent editorial oversight. The rest of the claims are nice, but not supported by sources. There is even the point that the company that he works for as a "VP (Africa)" doesn't even list him on their website. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Again, untrue, the mentions in Thisday are not trivial (and I urge others to read it). They listed him as an expert on his subject. Also, his OpEd pieces were published on the back page of Thisday, a privilege granted to only people of prominence including the current British PM and Nigeria's President. I referenced a news report from the Punch newspapers which shows that he speaks for the Nigerian President. His views are reported as the President's views. The report also shows that he engages in research on behalf of the Nigerian President. I dont know where you got the information that saharareporters is not credible when the Institute of African Studies, Carleton University, lists Penguin Award Winner, Prof. Pius Adesanmi's articles on saharareporters on his profile. If Carleton University considers it credible why shouldn't we? And on the piece criticizing him for his name not being on Trippi's website, he provided a state of Maryland notarized document from Trippi in a piece he did as a rebuttal to the saharareporters story. But it's funny that you refuse to give saharareporters credit for reliable stories yet they are reliable enough to cite their criticism of his standing at Trippi. By the way, why do you keep saying Think Africa Press is self-published? What does that term, Self-Published, mean to you? They are not WP:SPS). They are a bona fide news media. They have an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, other writers and have interviewed prominent serving and ex-government officials all around Africa and other personalities including the President of Zambia and pop stars. They have international correspondents all around Africa; Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe to mention a few. And they are domiciled in the UK, so again how do you mean self-published? --Etauso (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are no unsupported claims in the piece. Everything is either referenced or supported by external links. If you claim that there are unsupported claims, please specify which and which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etauso (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - FYI, I don't have the time, nor the desire to debate this with you ad nauseum. I have provided my reasons and thoughts, and my arguments for the closing admin. To recap, the refs provided do not establish notability by using reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Some of the articles used as references are written by the subject of the article. Most of the references mention the subject in passing, a trivial mention, and not the in-depth coverage required. GregJackP Boomer! 23:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this article. With all due respects I've been always polite with you and will not be baited to go ad hominem. You nominated this article for closure, so you obviously have the time and you cannot expect your opinions not to be challenged with facts! I've supplied valid references including one that reports him as speaking for the president of Nigeria, I also referenced an article from the Punch Newspaper (Nigeria's biggest daily) which is completely centered on Omokri and again another on Thisday that lists him as an expert, OpEd pieces including a backpage piece on ThisDay a paper circulated in Africa, South Africa and the U.S., full length interview on a British Magazine that also interviewed Presidents and Pop Stars. I also referenced his appearance as a Panelist at the United States Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council where he gave expert testimony on democracy, elections and the use of Social Media as a tool in both. I referenced criticism of his work by no less a personality than a Canadian Professor at the University of Carleton, who also happens to be a Penguin Award Winner. The British Magazine references some of his short films which were popular in Nigeria. He is the pastor of a church and the current Special Assistant to the Nigerian President on New Media and previously Vice President, Africa, of the U.S. Political Consultancy, Trippi and Associates, all of which I referenced. So, yes, I think I established notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. You on the other hand falsely alleged that a British Magazine was self published, I proved that it wasn't. You alleged that his GNews hits mentioned him in passing, the closing administrator only has to click on the link to discover that the allegation is false. You alleged that Thisday mentions him in passing, yet they described him as an "expert" authority on online campaigning and featured him on 2 OpEd pieces on their entire backpage. Finally, nowhere here have I used ad hominem attacks on you. I would not do that, but your opinions may not be passed off as facts!--Etauso (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did I accuse you of "ad hominem attacks", or for that matter, attacks of any kind? GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what, let's focus on the issue rather than our difference of opinion. To show that the subject is very topical, just today, Nigeria's biggest newspaper did an article which is totally centered on the subject. This same paper did another feature on him and the president of Nigeria 3 weeks ago. Do you still maintain that notability has not been established? [ -Etauso (talk)

• Comment - After following this discussion a bit, I did some in-depth research to find more info about Mr. Omokri. I could find very little. If this article is to survive this deletion debate, more info has to be located. I did vote to keep this article, but I understand that more substantial coverage of the subject needs to be located. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you Bill. Your advise has been followed and I have made honest efforts to address GregJackP's observations. When this article was nominated for deletion there were 4 references on the subject, today there are 19. I included an interview by a British Magazine which referenced his short films with links as well as multiple headline stories from Nigeria's biggest dailies which either featured him as the main subject in depth or featured him speaking for the President of Nigeria. I also featured direct from source references about his expert opinions at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council where he spoke along side Jendayi Frazer the former Asst. U.S. Secretary of State for Africa. I added the published paper he presented at the Atlantic Council. Finally, although I would have preferred to keep it out, I've added an article where the subject was parodied. [ -Etauso (talk)
• Keep & Rewrite - The subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources refer to him as "Special Adviser to the President on New Media".^{[1][2][3][4][5]} In 2011, the Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan set up several new assistant offices and appointed 24 new advisors, including Reno Omokri.^[6] Major Nigerian Daily Newspapers, both in print and in their online versions, have mentioned and featured Omokri as the new special adviser to the Nigerian President. Furthermore, Omokri has received coverage in his association with Trippi & Associates^[7] and as the founder of the project "Build up Nigeria". Thusly, Omokri has fullfilled Point #1 of WP:POLITICIAN (holding a national/statewide/provincewide office), WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BASIC. Even though the depth of coverage is not really substantial, yet the combination of these multiple independent sources have demonstrated notability (Point #1 of WP:BASIC).

The article however contains unsourced material, and several unreliable sources, which were included by a new editor. These unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability in Wikipedia. The editor who created the article is advised to fully acquaint her/himself with Wikipedia's Basic Policies and Guidelines, especially the Content Guideline on reliable sources and WP:BURDEN. Websites like wazobiareport.com, nigeriavillagesquare.com, thinkafricapress.com etc. are considered unreliable in Wikipedia because they do not have an editorial board, thusly there is no editorial oversight. The article should therefore be rewritten and all unsourced material in it should be deleted. Amsaim (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten - The article has been rewritten per Amsaim and Bill Pollard's advise. I also took into cognizance the observations raised by GregJackP. [ -Etauso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article still has problems.

FN1 is trivial mention, and information about his attempted censorship of government critics was omitted from the article.

FN2 is trivial mention.

FN3 is trivial mention, and information about his comment that northerner's deaths were easing the burden on the country were omitted from the article.

FN4 is trivial mention.

FN5 is trivial mention.

FN6 is trivial mention.

FN8 is trivial mention.

FN9 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN10 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN11 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN12 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN13 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN14 is trivial mention, as a panelist in a piece announcing a public workshop.

FN15 is trivial mention.

FN17 is trivial mention.

With the lack of decent sources that have in-depth coverage, and the statement that the article has been rewritten to address my concerns, it is necessary to point out that: 1) the subject still has not demonstrated notability; 2) the sources are not adequate; and 3) the article is biased towards a single POV, not including any negative information on the subject. GregJackP Boomer! 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Jonathan’s aide turns preacher on Facebook" and "Jonathan seeks feedback from Nigerians on power supply" are not trivial mentions of the subject. The OpEd pieces were used to reference the fact that he is a prolific writer. How else does one prove that the subject is a prolific writer other than by referencing OpEds he has written for major national and International Newspapers? Also, to establish neutrality, these three "Between terrorism and corruption (2)", "Obasanjo vs National Assembly: Ali Baba and the 40 thieves" and "Seven days and seven nights" are heavily critical of the subject while FN6 calls the appointment of the subject as an Advisor unnecessary. --Etauso (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the two first links posted directly above are non-trivial independent coverage. Within the Nigerian context, his role as social media spokesperson seems to possess an out-sized importance, attracting controversy as well as coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again GregJackP is not being accurate and I am getting concerned especially after investigations on the Internet turns up a similar pattern of behavior for him in other cases. The subject was never quoted to have said what you attribute to FN3. What that critical article alleged was that he once tweeted that some persons were ""parasites" (again, given GregJackP's penchant for making unsubstantiated claims I urge others to read the said article). Also you have not given a proper account of FN1. In the article he had asked a foreign national not to interfere in Nigeria's politics. And if you truly have concerns about these articles nothing stops you from adding those details to the article if you concerns were truly altruistic. That would have been the appropriate thing to do rather than nominate the article for deletion and for violation of NPOV. Please appreciate that the subject of the article is a senior government official in Nigeria and when you misrepresent the truth as you have done here you could trigger consequences that have more impact than your winning an argument. Please try to be factual and avoid hasty claims. --Etauso (talk)

• Comment. May I just add that in addition to nominating this article for deletion, GregJackP has also raised another dispute about the neutrality of this article, stating that it violates NPOV requirements for neutrality. This is in spite of the fact that I and others have referenced at least 4 articles critical of the subject and stating that others disagree with his methods without being critical of those others or showing support for the subject. He also filed another deletion dispute to an article for G57 referenced on this current article. I hope these are good faith acts by GregJackP and not an attempt to win an argument irrespective of the facts.--Etauso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The NPOV tag is based on the info in FN1 and FN3 above (at the time of the comment, the FN # may be different now). The other deletion nom is based on the evidence that I posted there, and the belief that it is not notable and not ref'd properly. It has nothing to do with this article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also added one more non-trivial reference "2011: Nigerians In Diaspora Back Jonathan"--Etauso (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have just referenced an article from the Voice of America which featured Mr. Omokri in a non trivial mention--Etauso (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article has seen many improvements since the deletion debate began. It seems there is not an abundance of material on the subject, so the author has to make do with what he has. Blog comments need to be kept out due to their biases, which has been pointed out. Also, more of the material critical to the subject from the references should be inserted into the article, because it is to reflect the subject in an objective manner. Wikipedia articles are to provide all reliable info available, not just the positive stuff. My vote to keep this article remains, as it is stronger than when I first read it. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with the writer above that this article should remain. I have seen many improvements and all unreliable material has been removed, plus more material critical of the subject has been added. naijacicero (talk) 09:08 AM, 12 September 2012 (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.