Yinka Ash : Promo/Puff piece article.  Refs are PR, profiles and interviews.  UPE.  scope_creep Talk 05:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Fashion ,  and Nigeria .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I rewrote most of this page when it is mostly had fairly biased writing initially, after request from the contributor, I felt bad that he was being labelled as a paid reviewer when he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about this person, so I removed the biased language out of the article.  However, now reading upon the background context of most sources used within the article I agree that it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO .  I dowsee that he did genuinely be featured on the Forbes African under 30s.  Not sure if it is a pay-to-promote scheme, but there just isn't enough sources to justify or evidence this page.  ~ mohamed ( talk ) 05:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs.  Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait.  In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia.  So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can.  They are junk.  scope_creep Talk 06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria.  Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid?  per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source?  Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk ) 07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Anoghena Okoyomoh : Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good.  Generally per best-practice, if you show WP:THREE good WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is WP:PRIMARY , WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability.  Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability.  They are often written by the person themselves.  The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable.  Hope that helps.  scope_creep Talk 13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see, true, that would be "the SUN Nigeria" article because it's an interview of the subject matter himself and removes the neutral point of view necessity required by Wikipedia.  Follow-up, would it be the same if there is a source that is in interview format but with someone within the same space, like for instance, a Frank Sinatra interview piece where he mentions facts on Ella Fitzgerald - same interview source being used as cited source in the Wikipedia article for Ella Fitzgerald to establish facts?  Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk ) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From what I can see, this is a notable fashion designer whose work is mainly known in Nigeria, but so what?  Does Wikipedia have a problem with that?  I see articles about people from all over the world. -- Hazooyi ( talk ) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources used the typical extravagant language found in Nigerian media, but we have more than a few of these articles about the individual, should be ok for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It might be worth evaluating the notability of Ash's brand Ashluxe/Ashluxury.  Ash certainly isn't a nobody and one must consider the language typically found in Nigerian media, as Oaktree b pointed out, but most of the articles in publications we typically deem reliable are interviews ( GQ South Africa , The Guardian Nigeria , Suitcase Magazine ).  Most of the coverage of Ashluxe is about a particular collection they released ( Vogue , Punch , The Guardian Nigeria , Vanguard Nigeria ).  Mooonswimmer 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm.  It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR.  Most of it anyway.  The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there.  While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight.  I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article.  I can't any reason why it wouldn't be.  It would be all one project.  There is a coi problem which is clear.  scope_creep Talk 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And likely a WP:UPE .  scope_creep Talk 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I almost AfD nominated this article myself after I came across it.  What's said above is true - the last contributor was probably not a paid reviewer, but the one who created the article almost certainly was, and probably a sock account to boot (they were using an open proxy to edit).  Either way, once all the cruft was stripped away, there's very little left and almost none of it from reliable sources.  Interviews with the subject and a freelance writer can be set up by the subject at low-traffic sites all day long, but they don't equal significant coverage.  Not only was this article likely pay-to-promote, but most of the cited "sources" look like they are as well.  Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO as a result.  Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete was on the fence but I find the Fred's reasoning to be solid.   Good day— RetroCosmos talk 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the cited source lacks significant coverage; it mainly consists of interviews, passing mentions, or those 'he says, she says' type of articles.  The author of the article

Discussion outcome: delete