Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhymesonny

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymesonny

[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)

complete blackhat SEO nonsense and otherwise non RS - this is a spam campaign, straight up, trying to fabricate notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The BBC one is likely the best source, but it's just a feature piece on this person. The rest are non-RS. I can't find much else. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae @Oaktree b there is a little comprehension why this has been nominated for deletion even after it went through the regular AFC submission process and spent a number of days there.

How do you only say that the BBC is the only notable source when other sources like the world Bank's official website have been used?

Is this a case of trying to reduce notability to the platform? What happened to independence of the source? What happened to linked articles where the subject has been mentioned right here on Wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia only for people who are featured on BBC, CNN and Fox News? How many people can BBC realistically cover.

Wikipedia is for everyone so why does this feel sentimental?

First, @Praxidicae reverted to draft space because of a purported conflict of interest due to the use of a picture. Then i had to edit it and submit through AFC. The draft review team judged it against all Wikipedia guidelines and deemed it fit to be on Wikipedia. Now you @Praxidicae have returned with the motion to delete based on what you call "fabricated notability". When does this end, tell me? There is not a single case about any policy it violates so tell us why you believe this should be deleted?

Are you aware of the sourcing gaps that exist about African content, the level of misinformation and the apparent lack of significant coverage on some notable people, events and parts of history? If you wish to write off some sources, how exactly do you expect that content gap on African content to reduce.

These guidelines are not a one-size-fits-all and you have to understand that not all subject matter will receive standard referencing. Heatrave (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source bot hasn't identified them as reliable. I may have to re-review them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bot identified and removed the sources and i had to find other sources. Then i discovered that the references have been removed again. At this rate, i will have to remove the attached statements not because they are not true but because the sources are extremely limited. Heatrave (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article should be subject to deletion. In fact, I find everything extremely credible. I am, frankly, frustrated with the fact that this was ever nominated for deletion. Does everyone have to be already well linked in with the rich and famous to deserve a wikipedia page? This Rhymesonny artist is clearly a person of great talent and moment in their art form and region. They deserve to have their page remain listed. HelpfulHannah23 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not GhanaWeb and Pulse Ghana. I consider them utterly unreliable and as such this fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces as editors we have little to no control over the sources we find as some of the information was published more than a decade ago. We try as much as possible to use sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. Unfortunately, these sources do not write with the Wikipedia referencing in mind. If we decide to be strict, we may never get sources for any articles we write from the already fewer options available. Heatrave (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this fails GNG as there isn't multiple independent sources providing significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 21 December 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.