Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caramel Plug

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. I can't weigh the keep arguments very heavily given the solid source analysis & ENT rebuttal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caramel Plug[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)

non-notable person, all the sources are tantamount to gossip, even from Vanguard (which i'll note has no byline) and those that aren't gossip columns are regurgitated press releases. CUPIDICAE💕 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ihadarack (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first glance of the sources used, you’d be almost tempted to erroneously conclude the subject is notable but upon dissecting the sources you’d observe almost all are self published or are pieces written by guest editors. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From what Wikipedia describes as notability, she is notable and sources are also on the page to prove that.Ihadarack (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject seems notable as per the sources however they don't seem notable as per elestina007. --Excutient^Talk 23:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I mean the sources aren't credible --Excutient^Talk 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your !vote makes absolutely no sense. Would you or the other keep be so kind as to actually provide at least one independent and in depth source about this person? CUPIDICAE💕 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the OPs assessment of the sources. Waggie (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the OPs assessment of the sources. Although I didn't look at all of them, I didn't feel the need to, there's enough there to meet WP:GNG IMO. WestCD (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as Celestina007 and the nominator mentioned the sources are not at the level to support GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ihadarack (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD I was able to find this significant coverage of her in what appears to be in reliable sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-caramel-plug-the-young-comedian-and-social-media-personality-of-2020/ and https://punchng.com/i-always-smile-even-when-sad-caramel-plug/ Dream Focus 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I am eliminating my vote based on what Celestina007 said. Now I'm not certain of anything. Dream Focus 00:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no those sources are just rehashed press releases chock with misspellings and bad grammar. And the second is an interview with no byline. CUPIDICAE💕 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about these two sources, https://www.newtelegraphng.com/caramel-plug-life-and-rise-of-the-20-year-old-social-media-personality-ogechi-ukonu/ and https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-caramel-plug-the-young-comedian-and-social-media-personality-of-2020, they are reliable and independent sources and if you go through the references on the page, you will find more sources like that.Ihadarack (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

newtelegraphng is not a reliable source, it's an attempt to utilize the reputable name of a defunct newspaper New Telegraph. CUPIDICAE💕 19:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — First off, a major kudos to Praxidicae for nabbing this UPE article. As a Nigerian that I am, or at least, one who has lived in Nigeria for 20+ years now, I can say she certainly isn’t notable, a careful review of the sources shows puffery in some sources used indicating that they are a paid for piece. In Nigeria, corruption is the order of the day & even certain “reliable sources” accept financial rewards in exchange for a piece without disclosing this to the readers, thus it is left to us to dissect each piece written by a so-called “reliable source” and discern legit from Paid for. I can say without an iota of doubt that this individual is merely seeking a presence on Wikipedia & paying media outlets to write articles on her. Let us also put in the back of all minds that the creator of this article is a/an single purpose promo only account(feel free to look up their edit history) and haven’t edited any other thing/article asides this particular one. Add two & two & the answer is right before your very eyes. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have reviewed the sources cited on the page carefully and can't find any of the sources that look like a paid piece. Also, there are enough sources on the page to meetWP:GNG.Jacwizy (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to look at the sources, you would see they clearly do not have editorial oversight and are parroting one another. Or do we now accept sources that don't fact check or even run basic spell checks? Maybe I should get into the business of publishing vanity spam myself. CUPIDICAE💕 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't appear people are willing to actually read the sources, I've done an analysis:

this is clearly not rs, it's a rehash of a PR submission which is parroted in several sources below.
clearly the same as the above with slight wording changes, it's three paragraphs of the same rehashed material
yet another rehash of previous content specifically this, while worded slightly different, it's the same thing, down to the "millenial" crap
no byline, not a reliable source and basically rehashing the same exact PR nonsense
not rs, not coverage, it's a full on interview, no depth and nothing remotely close to being independent
this is the company she's working for talking about her, not independent, no indication that this is rs and it certainly lacks any meaningful depth
no byline no indication this is independent and like the rest, just rehashed PR gibberish
this is nothing more than self congratulatory puffery CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the excellent reasoning of Praxidicae and Celestina007. This is much more sophisticated than the usual vanity spam but we should still remove it for now. Maybe Caramel Plug will be notable one day and we can restore her article with some more suitable sources but, for now, the best thing to do is delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Celestina's explanation and Praxidicae's analysis for sources for reliability and signficant coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per internet comedian, Instagram comedian, there notability due not rely only on published coverage, some of them may not have viable independent sources but very notable on their sphere, the Category should be specified as internet comedian, it is very different from basic comedy. Author may need to improve on it, specific categories and provide other evidential details to support it.Amosflash (talk)

there notability due not rely only on published coverage, this is simply untrue. Notability relies on independent coverage from reliable sources. If there aren't viable independent sources, they aren't notable and we cannot have an article. CUPIDICAE💕 12:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She meets WP:ENT and if you go through her Instagram page which has a large number of followers, you will see that she has appeared in some television shows, also have some offline sources and collaborations with notable people in her country. No doubt, she is notable.(Creativecreatr (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Comment — @Creativecreatr, I’m afraid you do not understand WP:ENT. For starters, I live in her country, Nigeria (and probably so do you) and she isn’t notable nor does she have a presence here & that’s the long & short of it, for a detailed explanation feel free to read all I have to say;
per #1 she doesn’t satisfy it as she has “no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions”. (A before search confirms this & you are free to counter my claim by producing RS to the contrary)
Per #2 She also doesn’t satisfy , as a faux follower count of 671k is very much negligible and cannot be considered a “cult following” you’d notice I called it a “faux follower count”?? The reason is Nigerian celebrities are in the horrible habit of purchasing followers, a despicable behavior which has been covered severally by reliable media see this, this, & this. I could go on & on but you should get my drift already.
Per#3 “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment”, Well, She definitely hasn’t made such contributions. (Like I said above you may provide RS to the contrary).

All the aforementioned coupled with the fact that the article creator is an WP:SPA throwaway account, and the fact thus far we haven’t seen at least WP:THREE good sources substantiating nor proving the subject’s alleged notability is indicative of the obvious, which is, she is not notable just yet & those reliable sources do not exist. Lest I forget, I should remind you at this juncture that internet fame or popularity doesn’t equate notability on Wikipedia.Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

celestina007 What's even more interesting is that all the claims of her "instagram" fame aren't supported - the two sources that talk about it don't mention IG or don't even mention her account and when looking for her on ig, she is neither verified and the first account that comes up is a fan account, so...CUPIDICAE💕 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae, yup! & that too. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Prax's analysis of the sources; there is nothing which would meet the definition of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". I cannot find anything which would otherwise contribute toward the subject meeting GNG or the notability guidelines for entertainers. Wikipedia is not for promoting non-notable people. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2021 (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.