Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JOM Charity Award

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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!

JOM Charity Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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 ScribeEdits! 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
]

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: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: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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JOM_Charity_Award&oldid=1224996917"