Talk:Eku Edewor

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2017. The result of the discussion was weak keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Nigeria Mid‑importance

	Nigeria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Top Model Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Top Model task force (assessed as Low-importance).

AfroCreatives

This article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eku Edewor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901092505/http://www.punchng.com/spice/my-favourites/my-style-changes-daily-eku-edewor/ to http://www.punchng.com/spice/my-favourites/my-style-changes-daily-eku-edewor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Of Subject[edit]

No.1; Hello, @Darreg i have been away for quite long is why i am just reacting to this, i inserted the original notability related maintainance tags and as so, i have reverted your edit and restored it to the version of Versace1608 (hello to you too Versace) due to the fact that it represents perfectly, the current state of the page, now as per wikipedia guidelines drive by tagging or un-tagging is not proper and as so, we must make use of the article's talk to convey issues, or disagreements as regards certain aspects, and sections of any article. Now to my point; you say from observation, that sources provided in this article proves subject quite notable. it really does indeed beg the following questions; are these sources that potray her supposed notability even reliable sources? are the sources which are present in the article independent of the subject? have they, as per WP:INDEPTH discussed her significantly? answer those; and No! i wouldn't nominate the page for deletion because to be frank, which policy suggests that? The tags are not badges of shame but rather it is for people to improve on them, i would suggest you do not try to revert it but instead we try and reason here and reach a form of agreement. Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.2 ; @Darreg You are yet to act in accordance with wikipedia guidelines, as per polices and guidelines governing this environment, wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires the effort of each and every one in order for it to function properly, from observation i see you taking actions based on what you think is correct rather than try to reach a consensus with other editors; an attitude of WP:OWN even though it wasnt you who created this page, furthermore your attitude of continually removing maintainance tags without addressing the issues is an attitude described in WP:!HERE i have studied a good number of polices and guidelines pertaining to this encylopedia and no where does it say an editor may remove maintainance tags if he or she feels like it. does it not apply to your reasoning that it would bring edification to wikipedia and more worth and value to you as an editor, if rather than argue, you look for sources which discuss WP:INDEPTH about the subject and insert it into the article. now isn't that just easy enough? please discontinue the act of removing maintainance tags without first addressing the issues i politely request this of you. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly assist me on this, @Jamie Tubers @Mahveotm and Versace1608 Your contributions would influence this misunderstanding between Darreg and I, as i am unable to understand let alone follow his thought process. (Reading the page history would enlighten you all better. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Please wait until some discussion has happened before requesting a third opinion. If the other editor does not respond see WP:DISCFAIL. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 00:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ProgrammingGeek: Hello, and thanks for even taking out time to respond, i have followed duly, the steps discribed in WP:DISCFAIL and would wait as i have been doing in the last 4 days for the editor to comply by engaging with me, if that still proves abortive then i would proceed to the next step & so on. Do have a nice day ahead and once more; Thank you. Further more,; for the sake of knowledge and being thorough; the editor Darreg has here , just Deleted the 1st Talkback request i placed on his user talk. My reasonsing is as thus ; i would not want any confusion when i place the second one as directed by WP:DISCFAIL Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.3 ; Good day to you @Darreg: This is the third time i would politely ask you for a formal discuss as pertains your actions of removing the notability tags without providing reliable sources or even in any way try to address the tag, you have resorted to even not using your edit summary, leaving your edit summary totally blank a direct violation of WP:ES This is the third time you would act in this manner, i believe you know what you are doing and also believe you know how imperative the numerical figure 3 is, when it comes to matters such as this, please discuss with me first before further changes to this page, you are way too experienced to violate polices such as WP:ENGAGE if this gets to the ANI we both know who's taking the fall, dont tarnish your name & repute please let us work according to wikipedia polices and guidelines i beg you for your own sake.Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celestina, sorry for the late reply; I have been quite busy. First of all, I don't feel this subject's notability is in question, as a quick google search brings up a pretty wide media coverage. However, I feel Darreg should've been willing to discuss with you, since he was bent on removing your tag. I see the article has been nominated for deletion already, let's see what comes out of that. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not obligated to leave a note on the talkpage. It was her word against mine. This isn't a speedy deletion or PROD nom. I gave her reasons why I removed the tag in my first two edits. The right thing to do was to nominate the article for deletion, if she still thought otherwise. This isn't just about this article its about a trail of edits that someone needed to take a strong stand on. Darreg (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]