Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JOM Charity Award

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. PR puffery and absurdites like this are not reliable sources, as analyzed below. Bishonen | tålk 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOM Charity Award

[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)

Delete, non notable Award. Sources number 2 and 3 are same PR puffery published within a month of each other and the contents bear striking similarity and that cannot be taken as a coincidence. Source number 4 from The Sun (Nigeria) is a press release from the JOM Award itself but masked as a news story. Source number 5 from Vanguard (Nigeria) is very similar to sources number 2 and 3 in headlines and in the body and tone of the writing. The headline of the source number 5 says the JOM Award is one of the top 5 charity organisations in the UK but no single UK media outlet is cited in the article – a PR puffery at its best. All other sources cited are similar and unreliable due to their PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect to Jom Charity as the best option for WP:ATD. There are some sources that aren't PR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having looked though the sources, each seem to be substantially written by the same person. They make ridiculous and sensational claims. I don’t know if they are paid plants in newspapers, but I do know that the article was created by a known paid sock.

Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It has enough sources to meet notability for stand alone article.[1],[2],[3],

[4],[5],[6],[7]. Calyx2s (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nothing has changed since the nomination and what you presented are sources that were in the article when it was nominated. Notability is NOT about the number of sources in an article but their reliability. The sources are PR advertorial puffery. They do not count for notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best is to run a source assessment generation. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Daily Times Nigeria are all reliable and reputed newspapers of Nigeria. If we ignore a couple of references that reported based on the press releases, the article seems to have WP: SigCov. I go for Keep and develop!Davidindia (talk)
Comment, your statement is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments.LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why shooting yourself on the leg, so Newspaper sources per WP:NGRS is not reliable?Calyx2s (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just as Safari Scribe and Davidindia mentioned there are some sources that are not PR . The above sources meet Notability except the one from PM News I feel might be PR.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination analysis. It fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a case of undisclosed paid editing. The sources cited in this article are advertorial/PR material pretending to be independent secondary sources. Though this sources are from reliable independent media news organisations, the press articles are PR efforts. The creator of this page is likely to be working for a PR Firm. They currently have two of their articles in WP:AFD and the two of them use same media sources, the writing are similar and the authors are mostly same. It is not a coincidence that should be overlooked. Their promotional articles in AFD are Gbenga Adigun and JOM Charity Award. See these two different sources and their bylines from The Sun (Nigeria) cited in both pages [8] and [9] written by same person (John Mike). See these two sources in both pages from Daily Times (Nigeria) and take note of their bylines even though they are covering different beats [10] and [11] written by same person ( Ihesiulo Grace). Now see these two different sources from Leadership cited in both pages [12] and [13] written by same person (Christopher Odey). Also see these two different sources from the PM News cited in both pages [14] and [15] written by same person (Taiwo Okanlawon). It is safe to say that this editor and those commenting Keep are working for same PR firm. Closing admin, please, take note of these editors commenting keep, they are most likely to be working together. Piscili (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:My account was created 9 months ago and some of these publications were existing long before I join Wikipedia. Check my contribution on Wikipedia has been from a neutral perspective. I feel you and the nominator might be using this account to discredit the article because I could see the desperation to discredit it. Because he went ahead to report to the admin. And also nominated this article and the award so he won't be able to scale through with WP:ANYBIO

Piscili , face the issues instead of trying to discredit a credible publishing house. And your votes was strictly on the article the nominator nominated, that an eyebrows that you both are working together if not same editor. Because him (nominator) asking Administrator if he can remove sources on the article really tells the desperation. How can you remove a newspaper sources that are reliable per WP:NGRS?

The articles has potential of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and certainly with WP:NACADEMIC as a fellow of a highly prestigious institute of learning.Calyx2s (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The nominator looks so desperate instead of allowing the editors to access the sources themselves and votes.

Just as he was advised when he reported at the admin noticed board, to allow the editor to access it. The desperation is making it seem as if he has been paid for it to bring the article down... And the recent votes by the low inexperienced editor, is making it seem like a plan votes since the nominator is not achieving its aim, Those New editors account needs to be checked.Calyx2s (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you and your spam articles and if the community decides to keep your WP:Spam articles I am fine with it. I saw the comment of the nominator at WP:ANI where they were instructed that the sources should not be removed so that other editors could assess them. I checked and found that the nominator had recently nominated three articles and commented on them. The two created by you have more issues because the sources used are from same media websites, same writers. Please defend this and stop attacking me. This is WP:AFD and everyone is allowed to comment. Are you trying to stop me from commenting in AFD? Piscili (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you will curve your decision for coming to AFD based on his report on WP:ANI. It seems you are not ready for policy discussion, instead calling a newspaper publications spam, check the edit of the award history when an editor touches the contents I never try to reverse it because I have no conflict or whatsoever. I drop the stick here Calyx2s (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (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.