Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Ofure

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. Sandstein 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ofure[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional BLP of a non notable real estate expert and life coach, sourced to puff pieces in the press. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is covered in reliable sources like Vanguard, The Nation, The Guardian, Punch, Business Day, and others. Can you mention a single phrase in the article that gives impression of being "promotional"? Insight 3 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, routine coverage of an individual, reads like a liknedin post. The entire article seems promotional as she only seems to do routine things in life. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would media cover a "non-notable" person's "routine" life? Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she paid them to? Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we prove that? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content. Insight 3 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bums in seats/eyes on a page. They cover what will generate ad revenue, not really what's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's what "Human Interest" stories are and news sources are more interested in getting clicks for an article than on notability. They're trying to make money, we aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have cleaned up the article for any possible promotional tone. Removed unreliable sources, Bellanaija and others, per WP:NGRS. Plz revisit the article. Insight 3 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the subject passes WP:NBASIC. The guideline also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I have added 2 more references. Insight 3 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO. It clearly says people should have done one of the following:
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field
The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography

Although multiple sources tell us this individual is real, coverage is not significant. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not WP:ANYBIO, but WP:NBASIC that applies here for notability. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Insight 3 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a more in-depth analysis of sources added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Oaktree b‘s rationales. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you placed your vote here, ignoring all the discussion below? Much of Oaktree's "rationales" are presented down there. Insight 3 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why Wikipedia placed my comment where it did. I just clicked on “Reply” and typed. 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even after the clean up, I'm trying to understand what she founded or why it's notable. Beyond simply stating facts, there is nothing to show that's she's much different than anyone else with a business career would be. Selling real estate is not notable and very routine, the Lifecard company thing doesn't tell me what it does or why it's notable. It could be a Fortune 500 company or it could be an e-commerce thing she's trying to launch. It appears she trains other real estate salespeople. That's usually a requirement to get a sales license for real estate, at least in my corner of the world. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our personal opinions and likes/dislikes don't matter here. Wikipedia is all about significant media coverage and the reliability of cited sources and that is what she has, making her different from other businesspersons. The real questions to be discussed here are whether:

1) the cited sources give significant coverage, i.e., talk mainly about her or just passing mentions?

2) the cited sources when combined make a case for notability or not?

3) the cited sources are independent of her? or they are press releases or sponsored content?

It would be beneficial if you could analyze the sources in this way, otherwise you have already voted "delete" above. Insight 3 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, NO for all above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 3 new references have been added to the article:

Comment these three are more of the same churnalism. The first two are puff pieces about her book launch. They contain lengthy paragraphs of quotation from her, not in depth coverage of her. The third (CED magazine) isn’t a piece of original journalism at all and says “source: Business Day”. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask again, "How do we prove that its churnalism? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (see WP:NGRS)"? And its not unusual for news features to quote subject's own words, this doesn't simply depreciate the source. We just don't take the info described inside the quotation marks.

For the third reference, the source "Business Day" itself is reliable, but is not available online. Insight 3 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we remove the quotes and we have three pieces confirming she wrote a book, with nothing of substance. Still nothing notable for our purposes. Of note, the Sun piece is tagged as "advertisement". The third source is written by Grace, the source of the article here. Have you even read what we require for sources? These are not acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement tag in The Sun?? Not that I can see. The CED Mag's page has tagged "Grace Ofure Ibhakhomu", the article is not written by her. Otherwise, how could she write about herself in "third person"?

Also in a BLP, not all cited sources are supposed to be covering subject's whole life and career from A to Z. A biography is based on the info taken from multiple sources. The first two sources are about her new books and they are cited in the "book section" of the article. They indicate the author is notable enough to be covered along with the news of her new books in national newspapers. Insight 3 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra... I'm waiting for your response. Insight 3 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I agree I don’t see where the piece in the Sun is tagged as an advertisement. Also the CED piece is tagged with GO’s name as you say, not attributed to her. So I agree that neither source has the shortcomings that Oaktree b suggests. Nevertheless these are classic pieces of churnalism. The ‘journalist’ basically gives the subject free rein to tell the world how marvellous they are, or takes a piece authored by the subject or their PR team and slightly reworks it to make it look like they interviewed them. These pieces are the opposite of in depth coverage and this kind of fawning profile is never accepted on Wikipedia as indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been an advertisement for the pop up box that wouldn't load to be fair. I'm still not sure the second source doesn't count as churnalism, but I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra Thanks but I was looking for your response to my above reply to your comment, not to Oaktree b's assessment. Anyway, I want to conclude it now:

1) Do you agree now that the cited sources are not "sponsored" or "paid" stuff as you suspected earlier? If yes, then it means you agree the sources are independent.

2) I think you have no issue with the reliability of the cited sources per WP:NGRS, right?

3) The sources mainly and directly talk about the subject and 14 sources together make a case for notability per WP:NBASIC (as it says:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), so the coverage is significant, isn't it?

4) Regarding your charge of churnalism, I would say the WP:GNG doesn't say anything about the "quality of journalism" and rightly so, because differentiating between journalism and churnalism can often be very subjective thing. Though I disagree that all the cited references in the article are works of churnalism, but even if we assume you are right, then most of Nigerian sources are like this. For example, consider Folorunso Alakija, the richest Nigerian businesswoman. She is lucky that she also has media coverage in some Western sources (like Times, Forbes, etc), but when it comes to Nigerian sources, just see the "churnalism" in this reference: Vanguard

And the "puff piece" here: The Nation

Now take another top Nigerian businesswoman Stella Chinyelu Okoli. She relies mostly on Nigerian sources for her notability and by your standards the cited articles are no better than Grace Ofure. Just have a look at 2 of them:

Vanguard, a classic puff piece (as you say)

This Day

I'm not suggesting at all that these bios should be removed from Wikipedia and I am quite aware of that two wrongs don't make a right. I am just making the point this is how journalism usually works in most parts of the globe (including Nigeria) and the notable subjects should not pay the price for poor journalism. Insight 3 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point to remember is that if these were published anywhere else, she would not at all be notable. I don't think we can give a pass for poor journalism. Founding a company isn't notable, teaching a class for real estate agents isn't notable. It's all rather routine stuff she's doing. Same as anyone else in her position would do. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CED piece lists her as "visionary business leader and iconic force in the global real estate market". Puffery, hence churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping but I don’t think I have anything more to add and haven’t changed my view. Articles with this quality of referencing get deleted all the time and I’m just not seeing what would get this subject over the bar. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I guess we are done here then. Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To sum up the discussion from my side:

I asked it twice, "how can the sources be suspected as "sponsored" or "paid" content, when they are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (per WP:NGRS)?", the nominator and others never directly responded to it. This is a critical inquiry because if this is not the case, then clearly the sources are independent of the subject.
Even when I broke everything into points for them, they repeated just 2 words "puff pieces" and "churnalism" again and again without mentioning any Wiki policy to back and clarifying that how the "assumed churnalism" is fault of the subject if the cited sources are independent.

Now I leave it up to the community and the admins. Thanks everyone. Insight 3 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the fact that both use flowery language as I highlighted above. For an iconic force in the global real estate market, she's unknown outside of her home country, which tells me it's not notable and "puffing up" her stature. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update. One more recent reference regarding her book launch has appeared:

Business Day ... Needless to say though, The Business Day (Nigeria) is a reliable source per WP:NGRS. Also to be noted, the 3 cited references for her books are mutually independent in their reporting of the same event. Insight 3 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very brief mention of a book launch, reliable yes, trivial mention, yes. Not terribly useful. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify due to WP:NOTPROMO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I request to draftify the article. I will resubmit it whenever I find more detailed press coverage for the subject. Insight 3 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2022 (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.