- 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. Davewild (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tonto Dikeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:ENTERTAINER. The article contains no reliable source which establishes notability. Some of the sources on the article are from unreliable & questionable sources (websites operated by one person, such as nigeriafilms.com, modernghana.com, timbuktumedia.com) which do not have a reputation of fact checking as stipulated by WP:RS. Amsaim (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not well sourced, but she is Nigerian. You can't expect the same coverage as you would of an American or English actress. So, keeping that in mind, I say we should keep. Remove that awful lost of movies, too. This isn't IMDb. KnowitallWiki (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nationality of the subject of any BLP article is irrelevant to Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules. There is no separate set of rules for American & English BLP articles, neither is there a separate set of rules for Nigerian BLP articles. Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules are applicable to all articles, irrespective of nationality. Amsaim (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards are the same, but our abbility (speaking personally as an English editor) to find, recognise and appreciate reliable sources and notability in Nigeian culture is a lot lower than for the same kind of person in our native cultures. In the same way a native Nigerian would probably not know about say a well known US soap opera star or appreciate which american websites are or aren't reliable. So the difference of culture is relevent when looking for notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A reliable source, according to Wikipedia's definition, has no relevance to culture or place of origin. To determine which source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors do not need to be acquainted with the cultural background of the source, but they need to be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable sources is. Sites like modernghana, nigeriafilms.com are not reliable sources, they are operated by 1 (one) person, they do not have editorial oversight, there is no reputation of fact checking. Culture and nationality have nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of reliability and notability. Amsaim (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that as a resident of the UK, I can quickly ascertain if a particular UK source is good enough because they are familar. When looking at another culture I can't and would need to do more digging for each source to assess it. As I made very clear above, I am not saying the standards are any different, simply that it is harder for non-natives of that culture to assess and apply those standards. Therefore caution needs to be shown when non-natives are judging notability and what constitutes a reliable source. I beleive this is what Knowitallwiki was alluding to as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS does not mention anything about "culture" or "natives". In order to know if a source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors should be familiar with Wikipedia's Reliable Source Content Guideline. Once an editor has understood what WP:RS is all about, s/he can quickly judge any source for reliability. Amsaim (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made my point cleary twice and it's nothing to do with the WP:RS policy, if you don't understand what I'm saying I'm sure other editors do. Have a nice day.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, your recommendation in this Afd has nothing to do with WP:RS. The point you've made has been fully understood, and the impression is created as if you bypass WP:RS in favour of your own personal way of determining what a reliable source is. Following your way will create BLP articles of lower standard (because they'll be based upon material found in unreliable sources), whereas following WP:RS will create high standard Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced with references from reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point works equally well in both directions, a source that looks good to me might in fact not be reliable if I knew more about it (a point I believe you were making) whereas a film I know nothing about might be very notable in Nigeria. Incidentaly, the main thrust of my arugument was not about the particular citations on the article, but the large number of google hits from various Nigerian news sources about this person. I don't know which of those are quality publications and which aren't. Similarly, she has appeared in a number of films, but I don't know which of those are notable in Nigeria. In that position, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to keep as I find it hard to believe that all of them are non-reliable one author sources. That's not to say the article shouldn't or couldn't be improved, but it looks likely to me that she is notable in Nigeria, which is the main point to decide here. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Case in point, this ref http://thenationonlineng.net/web3/sunday-magazine/screen/25456.html looks to be decent quality. From the paper's website (http://thenationonlineng.net/web3/about.html) they assert to be a reputable printed newspaper which to my eyes appears to clearly meet WP:RS. The article itself is focussed on her which supports WP:GNG and it validates that she's been in a number of films which supports item one of WP:ENT, assuming some of those films are notable in Nigeria. But you've stated there are no reliable sources in the article so presumably you know something about this organisation that I don't? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, your recommendation in this Afd has nothing to do with WP:RS. The point you've made has been fully understood, and the impression is created as if you bypass WP:RS in favour of your own personal way of determining what a reliable source is. Following your way will create BLP articles of lower standard (because they'll be based upon material found in unreliable sources), whereas following WP:RS will create high standard Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced with references from reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made my point cleary twice and it's nothing to do with the WP:RS policy, if you don't understand what I'm saying I'm sure other editors do. Have a nice day.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS does not mention anything about "culture" or "natives". In order to know if a source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors should be familiar with Wikipedia's Reliable Source Content Guideline. Once an editor has understood what WP:RS is all about, s/he can quickly judge any source for reliability. Amsaim (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that as a resident of the UK, I can quickly ascertain if a particular UK source is good enough because they are familar. When looking at another culture I can't and would need to do more digging for each source to assess it. As I made very clear above, I am not saying the standards are any different, simply that it is harder for non-natives of that culture to assess and apply those standards. Therefore caution needs to be shown when non-natives are judging notability and what constitutes a reliable source. I beleive this is what Knowitallwiki was alluding to as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A reliable source, according to Wikipedia's definition, has no relevance to culture or place of origin. To determine which source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors do not need to be acquainted with the cultural background of the source, but they need to be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable sources is. Sites like modernghana, nigeriafilms.com are not reliable sources, they are operated by 1 (one) person, they do not have editorial oversight, there is no reputation of fact checking. Culture and nationality have nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of reliability and notability. Amsaim (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards are the same, but our abbility (speaking personally as an English editor) to find, recognise and appreciate reliable sources and notability in Nigeian culture is a lot lower than for the same kind of person in our native cultures. In the same way a native Nigerian would probably not know about say a well known US soap opera star or appreciate which american websites are or aren't reliable. So the difference of culture is relevent when looking for notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nationality of the subject of any BLP article is irrelevant to Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules. There is no separate set of rules for American & English BLP articles, neither is there a separate set of rules for Nigerian BLP articles. Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules are applicable to all articles, irrespective of nationality. Amsaim (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has clearly appeared in a number of movies which while not notable worldwide, would appear to be notable in Nigeria. Has received quite a bit of press in Nigeria and clearly has some celebrity profile there. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article from "The Nation", "AllAfrica.com" and "Modern Ghana" would all seem to be reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.