Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asantewaa (TikToker)

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 keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asantewaa (TikToker)

[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)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO. With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources cited in the article are not independent of her and cannot be used to establish notability. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Ghana. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the subject has no career to speak about I disagree with you. By extension of being a tiktoker she has become an established brands influencer. And all the article I added are independent of her.Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with me, can you tell me what career she has? With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources are interviews she's conducted. How exactly are interviews independent? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Owula kpakpo, I agree with you. Fellow @Versace1608, your feedback about sources is fine and can be improved but your comment 'The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article.' is very harsh and unjustified.

You can make your comment without attacks. If your view on 'not being a career' is anything to go by, then the following TikTokers should be removed from Wikipedia. For example, Khabane Lame, Charli D'Amelio, Bella Poarch, Addison Rae, MrBeast, Zach King, etc.

Kindly state which Wikipedia's notability clauses have been violated, This is a learning process. In a nutshell, I vote that this article should be kept and its secondary sources improved. Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes"

Asantewaa is a TikToker and a notable influencer for brands.

Afimaame (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that "The subject doesn't have a career to speak of" is unnecessarily disrespectful. The nominator appears to suggest that social media influencer isn't a "real" career. We're here to discuss whether or not her biography merits inclusion in this encyclopedia; our opinions about the meaningfulness of her source of income are irrelevant. pburka (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: How is it "unnecessarily disrespectful"? I am simply pointing out the obvious. She does not have a career in the Tiktok field and is only known as a tiktoker, that's all. She has not been discussed in reliable sources. Can you show me where I suggested that social media influencer isn't a real career? Please do not make false allegations against me. I have already said the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that she's not actually a social media influencer? Challenging the truth of the biography is quite different than challenging the subject's notability. pburka (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WTH man? Did I tell you that she is not a social media influencer? Stop what you're doing. You do not need to comment on this AFD if you don't have anything meaningful to add. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree that she has a career as a social media influencer. I request that you withdraw your statement that "The subject doesn't have a career to speak of." It's disrespectful to the subject. pburka (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not engaging with you in this discussion again. This is going to be my last reply to you. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka you're right. Nominating an article for deletion with such comments as such defeats the purpose of nomination for deletion. This sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia.

@Versace1608 don't shy from accepting your mistake in making an unfriendly comment on this space. I agree with you about improving the article with more secondary sources but your comment about her career isn't worth it. To err is human.

Let's keep the article and make Wikipedia a hub of information for the world. Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable "influencer" as we have no neutral sources that talk about her extensively, in what we consider reliable sources. nothing we can use for an article. "People that make funny videos" isn't noteworthy. I can't find any articles about her. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this [1] I wouldn't call it extensive coverage and the website looks iffy, filled with spambait ads and popups. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sites are/can be considered as reliable, here and here. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources about the subject and there's a need to get more sources and the community [including you - @Oaktree b] can do that. @Robertjamal12 has provided some sources you can look into.

@Versace1608 and @Oaktree b editing Wikipedia is an inclusive responsibility so if there's a gap especially on secondary sources, you can leave a comment on the creator of the article's talk page.

Let's keep the article. Thank you Uprising Man (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or we can discuss it here at AfD, that's what we're here for. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient coverage per WP:BASIC, which allows us to stitch together the non-interview portions of the many articles about her in reliable secondary sources (*excluding* all the gossip columns), such as this Adom Online article which states that most of its viewers/readers in Ghana have heard of her (regardless of whether or not they use TikTok), and the Pulse Ghana articles, including the one when she won the 2021 award for TikTok Influencer of the Year, which also notes her large following at the time. Wikipedia articles about social media influencers are often hard to assess, but this one seems to have enough meaningful coverage; it's fine for the article to be short and sweet; and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per suggestions made by Cielquiparle --Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Cielquiparle CT55555(talk) 22:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have stated my reasons in other comments on this page. Simply get more secondary sources and nothing stops the nominator from improving the article. It can be short and sweet as @Cielquiparle puts it.

Also, I've stated my stance on the comment about she being a tiktoker not a career. Such a comment is 'unfriendly' and sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia. Uprising Man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning weak keep. There is at least one really substantial article about her (YEN), and a number of shorter ones. I do not know anything about Ghana so I cannot judge how her coverage compares to other celebrities. I default to "keep" based on that. Lamona (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add: the "Pulse influencer award" seems to be only 3 years old, so it needs some time before it gains a reputation as a "signficant award."

Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. The "doesn't have a career to speak of" comment by the nominator is demonstrably false and not actually a requirement for notability. Sources have been added to the article since the nomination, but the original claim that only one of the sources was independent of her was misleading. While some of the articles included quotes from the subject or were accompanied by interviews, they predominantly consist of prose written about the subject. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:46, 2 May 2023 (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.