Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Ohanyido Okoli

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damian Ohanyido Okoli

There is no denying that Google, WP and the Web in general are awfully short of information on Africa. So I suppose the fact that some tripod pages seem to confirm the existance of this person are quite an achievement already. It is mostly the circumstances that make this article suspicious (beyond desperately needing a cleanup): The formatting makes the article look like a recreation of a deleted article scraped off some WP mirror. The creator of the article added this note to the article's talk page: "This article appears factual and well written. More African biographies like this should be encouraged." The same editor also pushed the deleted Francis Okechukwu Ohanyido (e.g. [1], while Atomse who recently recreated said deleted article has edited the subject of this VfD with three of his five edits. Subjects of the articles are father and son. Bottom line: One-man mission to push some unverifiable subject into WP. Rl 16:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,very good biography.It seems true. We should keep it.-- [[User:Ok|Ok]

• This user's first edit. Rl 15:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with reservations. I dunno, both this and the article on this guy's son look to me reasonably encyclopaedic. I don't know much about Nigeria, but these don't look like hoaxes or simple vanity. And they aren't asking for bank account numbers ... Frjwoolley 17:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable source provided. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independently verified. Scimitar 18:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Google turns up just one hit, an adaption of the same article but hosted on somebody's free Tripod homepage. We must err on the side of caution when it comes to plausible but unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Revolución 20:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Karol 20:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We can defer the verification process until someone has made a due diligence search of independent sources--the mere fact that Google searches failed isn't enough to justify deletion in this case. Refer this article to WikiProject Countering systemic bias who can remit if they cannot confirm. I've also made an edit on Talk:Nigeria to see if anyone can help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC). Delete as unverifiable after nixie's searches turned up nothing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The burden of locating and providing sources is on the author, not those who have doubts. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Kinda. Nearly. Actually the burden is verifiability. The article provides information which should be verifiable. We should make a reasonable attempt to verify it. Google is not the gold standard of this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If the author can't be bothered to provide verifiable sources, why should we be required to do the research for him? If a thing cannot be easily verified using online tools, then the author should point us in the right direction to find other sources. It's basic courtesy. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• We have to be conservative in these cases. If we cannot confirm it, we cannot have it. Therefore, I recommend move to /temp location until settled. The point is that we're supposed to be the last to know, in a sense, and not on the cutting edge, as we're aiming for a reference work, and not a compendium of all ideas. Geogre 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that it must be deleted if unverified. I'm only suggesting that in view of the fact that only a google search has been performed we need more time to perform due diligence. We have no reason to rule out the reference site and the language can be edited, or a "totallydisputed" template should be added meanwhile to reflect the tentative nature of the article. I absolutely don't suggest that we leave it around for long. A week or two should be enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Article was created by an anonymous IP whose edits you can view here: [2]. As you can see, this is a person who seems to be knowledgeable about Africa, therefore I don't think this is a hoax. There is a website, where you can see info about this guy, and a picture.[3]. This article looks, at least to me, to be factual. Many google hits mention him as a "chief". You must also take into account the fact that Nigeria is not a country where internet access is common, which explains the low amount of Google hits about this man, who is probably only nationally known inside his own country. Also, I think his son, Francis Ohanyido, is notable. You can read one of his poems here: [4] -- Revolución 22:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. A Tripod website isn't good enough. --Carnildo 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you even read what I said? Revolución 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I read it, and still consider the current verifiability of this article to be nil. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you dispute the man's existence or the things he has done? Revolución 03:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You seem to think I am saying the man does not exist. I am not. I am saying that there is insufficient evidence that he does exist. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
          • But what do you believe? Do you believe, with the amount of evidence presented to you at the current time, that the man does or does not exist? Revolución 19:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't have enough information to make a determination of whether he exists as stated or not. However, his failure to appear anywhere other than a single Tripod-hosted page makes me doubt that he does. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vorash 10:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independently verified. JamesBurns 11:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,I couldn't verify anthing about this guy, he's not in the Contemporary Africa Database which is generally pretty good, there was no BBC radio Africans of the millenium, there are no ISBNs for his books, most prominent African authors are published in other languages. The copyright disclaimer at the top indicates that it was written by his sibling Clement, the absolute lack of verifiability lead me to think it should be deleted. --nixie 13:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The problm most of you are having with this articles and others like it from Africa is the same issues that colour North-South divide in all aspects of human endeavour...communication gap!Chief Ohanyido is widely celebrated in Nigeria and Africa.Those of you who searched BBC may not realise that the BBC African service / Network Africa is quite distinct from BBC world service.The fear here amongst wiki followers is that people sit all the time in advanced nations of the world and think that they know better than Africans about Africa. There are Africans who have achieved things that beggar parallel in the West.I vote that it should not be deleted if Wikipaedia will meet up with a balanced coverage of the world in view of the present digital divide.Revolución appears to have a true wiki-sense. --User:Atomse 13:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, to safeguard from "wiki-bias".--User:Atomse
  • You mean the grand conspiracy to have articles agree with reality? Keeping a Wikipedia article that is impossible to verify because it gives you warm happy multicultural fuzzies is ridiculous. It's 'put up or shut up' time, and I don't see you providing any sources. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiable. Quale 15:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.