Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ghana

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ghana. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Ghana|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Ghana. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Africa.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ghana/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Ghana

Betland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 source is WP:GNG worthy. A WP: Before also revealed nothing than source farming of puff pieces. this, this, this and this were published in the same month and did nothing than to praise the owner with unverified claims. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA -1ctinus📝🗨 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP as references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, I believe this can be speedy closed as creator is agreeing to deletion per their statement above. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Anderson (model)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refunded after soft deletion. All the sourcing on this fashion model is over-the-top promotional material, nearly all un-bylined, in sources of questionable independence and reliability (examples: Isaac Anderson 3000 is the modern Renaissance man, blending intellect, sustainability, and fashion into a tapestry that feels revolutionary yet timeless and Isaac Anderson is celebrated not only as a fashion icon but also as a trailblazer who has redefined the fashion landscape.) In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources and so I don't see a pass of WP:GNG (much less WP:NMODEL). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — @Dclemens1971.This sounds like a target to me though I might be wrong . I was doing some checks and I realized you’re the same editor that did that first nomination. The reason for both nominations are the same. For the first nomination I completely agree as the reasons as at that time was valid but I have a problem with this one. “All sources are over-the top promotional” this is not true if you check all the sources. One source was even talking about a scam call, how’s a scam call promotional for a model? Secondly you said nearly all unbylined. This is also not true. I can see only one source unbyline(the first source). For the promotional words you wrote , yes true it sounds promotional but even that that’s the conclusion of the article and the promotional is not throughout every article as you stated. You also said the sources’ independence is questionable. In a discussion by experienced editors about countries which are affected by system bias , some these sources were discussed. This is the link , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana & https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources . The subject has been featured in a notable show(CBS morning show). I think it should be included in the English Encyclopedia. Maconzy3 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the content in my BEFORE search, most of which was unbylined. But multiple sources in the article are indeed unbylined. Here's my source analysis:
Vanguard. No byline. Highly promotional.

Modern Ghana. Bylined but also highly promotional. This reads like marketing, not an independent, reliable news outlet. The author appears to have written only this article for Modern Ghana, so is likely not to be a reporter or a legitimate journalist.

PeaceFM. No byline. Promotional. Appears to be based entirely on quotes from Anderson.

Pulse. Bylined, but very promotional, by an "journalist" whose entire oeuvre appears to consist of spam.

CBS News. This is an article about Anderson's brother with a three-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Isaac Anderson.

GhanaCelebrities.com. An unreliable celebrity gossip blog.

Graphic.com.gh. Another puff piece.
Perhaps this is the discussion you meant to link? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. It makes clear that the Nigerian sources list of the WikiProject is questionable. Either way, all we have on Anderson are puff pieces, unbylined or by writers with sketchy credentials, or articles that mention him trivially. No independent and reliable SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About bylined and unbylined. You can only say multiple if it’s two or more. Only one which is vanguard Nigeria is Unbylined. For PeaceFM it’s at the buttom. It shows it’s from Isaac Anderson/Peacefm. So definitely an interview reporting but it is not promotional. The vanguard news has a promotional tone for that I agree. You said modernghana.com has a questionable independence, I’d advice you do research on things you’re not familiar with. Modernghana is one of the biggest news sites in Ghana although their reliability in this discussion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) is unclear. Even that I agree that it has a promotional tone but not marketing but I think educating you previously was important. The CBS news was only used to verify the subject’s education as it was mentioned. The Graphic newspaper is state owned newpaper that is considered generally reliable according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) . You also shared a link to a discussion. The discussion was about Nigerian sources not Ghanaian. The only Nigerian source here is Vanguard. I agree with you on few things but your generalization and exaggeration is making it hard for me to agree completely. I think some sources should be removed but I still stand that on my point that the article should be kept. Maconzy3 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the PeaceFM attribution of "Source" to Anderson to be the photos of Anderson, but if you're saying that Isaac Anderson wrote that piece, it's even less eligible to demonstrate notability since it's not remotely independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator's reason and source analysis. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that Soft Deletion is not an option as the article has been to AFD before and there is a Keep vote (yes, from a sock but it wasn't evading a block at the time).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still the flowery language in sources, "emerging force in the fashion world" [1]... With no coverage, likely hasn't emerged far enough yet... Delete for PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Promotional article without independent significant coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]