Idrisskunle
Kefas Brand (2nd nomination)
editHi Idrisskunle. I'm replying to the message you left on my talk page. I'm not seeing anything unusual in the discussion itself that makes me think emotion was involved in the decision process. It's hard for me to form an opinion beyond that as the article has been deleted, and I can no longer view it (and I didn't see it before it was deleted). To me it looks like editors were concerned over sourcing issues as defined at our policy at WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, there were concerns that language was overly self promotional which violates policy at WP:NOTPROMO. When we write on wikipedia we need to maintain the WP:TONE of an encyclcopedia.
I think part of the issue is that there is concern of WP:COI editing in a group of articles by User:Ruth Nandera and various WP:SOCKPUPPETS, and that has prejudiced viewers in the way they are viewing these articles and the media sources used collectively. Unfortunately, it's going to be very difficult to write on these topics going forward because the wikipedia community as a whole does not like people to edit the encyclopedia on topics to which they have a personal connection, or where sock-puppetry has occured. Once those kind of suspicions are aroused, the editing community tends to become very hostile to that content and will continue to pursue deletion. It's not so much emotional as it is "righteous indignation". At this point there isn't much that can be done but let time pass. If the artists are notable, there will continue to be more sources and that will aid in proving notability as coverage across time is a good litmus test. I suggest waiting a year and then re-writing the article in WP:DRAFT space if this a topic that you are interested in. Ping me at that time and I will give it a copy edit for WP:TONE and feedback on ways to make the article more congruent with wikipedia's style and approach to content. Best wishes. 4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response and sincerity. I’d be greatful to learn more from your guidance. I definitely will do as you have instructed. Thanks Idrisskunle (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are welcome. FYI, part of the suspicion of the article(s) is the overly glowing news stories. It makes people think that the sources are not independent and have potentially been paid to report on the subject (which is something that does happen). It would be helpful when you come back to the article to include some negative or at least balanced press (if there is any) when you come back to this topic area to prove that the article/wikipedia isn't being used as a promotional tool in an inappropriate way. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @4meter4 Also could you look at the article on simple wiki for it’s not yet deleted http://simple.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kefas_Brand Idrisskunle (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Im greatful for your guidance im learning more from this conversation
- once again thanks for sparing your time to give me more insight on how to become a better contributor. Idrisskunle (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- So in looking at the article, the sources all present a strong positive image in a way that seems designed to promote the subject. Many editors would perceive these news pieces as Puffery (see "Puff piece" section). Puff pieces are generally dismissed as unreliable; largely because the media is either paid to write them or there is some other conflict of interest. The kind of media coverage we are looking for is a clearly independent review which will have some critical engagement that is obviously not promoting the subject. That means, the piece will have some criticism and will not be all positive. Ideally, things like film reviews where the work is obviously be analyzed as a work of art with both strengths and weaknesses being discussed would help show notability. The same thing for a piece on the artist. An independent entertainment journalist isn't going to write a puff piece, they are going to highlight the good and the bad.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes given this point of view it then all makes sense as why the articles appear to be paid promotion. I did some little research on different articles published about different Personalities in Uganda and I realized the same context of writing so could it be a fault of the Arthur’s or most of the articles published there are mainly interviews I was finding it difficult to understand but now I can see as to why
- thanks once again for your guidance IM learning alot Idrisskunle (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- So in looking at the article, the sources all present a strong positive image in a way that seems designed to promote the subject. Many editors would perceive these news pieces as Puffery (see "Puff piece" section). Puff pieces are generally dismissed as unreliable; largely because the media is either paid to write them or there is some other conflict of interest. The kind of media coverage we are looking for is a clearly independent review which will have some critical engagement that is obviously not promoting the subject. That means, the piece will have some criticism and will not be all positive. Ideally, things like film reviews where the work is obviously be analyzed as a work of art with both strengths and weaknesses being discussed would help show notability. The same thing for a piece on the artist. An independent entertainment journalist isn't going to write a puff piece, they are going to highlight the good and the bad.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are welcome. FYI, part of the suspicion of the article(s) is the overly glowing news stories. It makes people think that the sources are not independent and have potentially been paid to report on the subject (which is something that does happen). It would be helpful when you come back to the article to include some negative or at least balanced press (if there is any) when you come back to this topic area to prove that the article/wikipedia isn't being used as a promotional tool in an inappropriate way. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)