Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa

WP:DSAFRICA

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Africa. 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|Africa|~~~~}} 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 Africa. 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.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa

Africa[edit]

Wo Wo[edit]

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

I took a some time to dig sources and find the reason why this article meets WP:NSONG but can't find either. The song topped a non notable chart and hasn't been covered significantly in reliable news sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Chioma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Being a wife of a notable person doesn't mean the wife should be notable. No! It's WP:INHERITED. Besides, celebrities can be influential but not notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del - thoroughly nonnotable. - Altenmann >talk 09:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've reviewed the article and understand the nominee's concerns. While Chef Chioma may be a notable figure in Nigeria, the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish their notability on a national or international level. The content is also quite brief and doesn't provide enough context or depth to meet Wikipedia's standards. Based on these factors, I support the deletion of the article. - 2RDD Talk🔊 10:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilco (musician)[edit]

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I sat down for a while trying to find good sources for the individual but to no avail. There is also a close paraphrasing of copied content from a blog here. To crown it all, the article is a run-of-mill. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes GNG. In 2019 here or here subject was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in the UMP Awards. In 2017 here again, subject was nominated in " Best Afro Pop Category of the Year" in the Nyasa Music Awards. Again, in 2018 here she was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in Nyasa Awards. I also found this published in 2018, in Nyasa Times, here too, and more here, here, here, another here, by Nthanda Times, again here by The Nation, which can be used to sustain an article (WP:NEXIST)-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may bear or consider the awards though they seem not to be a major musical award. The sources you cited doesn't meet WP:SIRS; they appear to be quotations of the singer or about a releasee of song, which normally gets handled by a PR. I will wait for more participation though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe I don't think you really did a Google search properly because you said subject has no GNG. Now you say the awards mentioned are not the major awards, can you mention any of major award found in this country? Because those are the only major awards, among others. Again, you might wanna consider checking this for sources about the country. If you find sources that are not reliable there, please post them here for the community's input. Claiming that the awards (or something) is not major without researching is a big turn off as a new page reviewer. Again, some sources provided above such as The Nation here are considered reliable as the source (site) is one of the physical newspapers that started in early 1990s, and this is its online version. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commenting on what's already out there, I don't see any awards listed in the article whatsoever. The use of tone, formatting, MOS, and writing is very poor and kind of promotional, meaning the article does not state how and why the subject is notable. "She was born on 14 February 1995 in a family of six children in Blantyre." that is really not necessary and the statement is cited to a non-reliable source. "Hilco has been featured by different artists in the country such as Saint on a track "wanga (mine)" and "Usanapite (Don't go) that features the voice of Dan Lufani." She may be featured by Jesus but still not be notable as notability is not inherent. The "See also" section is also unnecessary.
Now looking at the notability of the subject, I don't see anything claiming that she meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NSINGER and for what it's worth, the article is not convincing that they meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And looking at WP:WikiProject Malawi/Malawian sources, there is no claim that the listed sources are reliable as there is a goal to review the sources. The website may be notable but not its content, for example Sportskeeda, Sputnik and so on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Frankly, I do not blame the reviewer for seeking consensus here as there's not much in this article. dxneo (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Tumbuka Arch, you are that guy I pleaded with to make sure their articles are cited to reliable sources before moving them to mainspace on this AfD. We can't keep discussing the same problem over and over and then you later decide to improve the article when it's on AfD. Please refrain from doing this and if there are more of your articles like this one and the aforementioned, please work on them before they get here too. dxneo (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogo Blay[edit]

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. The reality show he won wasn't notable as it would have been redirected there. After accessing the sources, I can say this article's context, and sourcing is not enough for our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails MUSICIAN and GNG. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator, as the musician is only visible in his own social media and self-uploading sites, and the reality show victory is insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Kyazze[edit]

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

I reviewed tis article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.

In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [1] and [2]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find coverage [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude redirecting there per this source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find several sources where he has a non-trivial mention, but all of these are simply related to his role at Chapter Four Uganda. https://www.pulse.ug/news/chapter-four-resumes-operations-appoints-ag-executive-director/bms1s5p https://nilepost.co.ug/news/147338/poor-cultural-practices-violence-hindering-africas-development https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020935790 I would suggest Redirect to Chapter Four Uganda- he does not need his own article in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Proposed deletions[edit]

Evans Brima Gbemeh (via WP:PROD on 11 September 2023)

Algeria[edit]

Ahmed Zitouni[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly found sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional sources at 1 and 2 as well as numerous Google book references such as 3 (pp.21-22). Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This smells of retaliation since the nom had the article about them deleted via AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already mentioned, which satisfy general notability, Zitouni's work has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG. Any one of these would be enough to keep. The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found here. Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 In light of the sources provided by Mccapra and Cortador, would you consider there to be sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR? Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found this, which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and this book, which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131. Toadspike [Talk] 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike, I would, yes! Thanks for the ping, not sure how I had missed those sources! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<--

Algeria Proposed deletions[edit]

Please hide entire section when there are no articles nominated for WP:PROD -->

Angola[edit]

Jan Pawelec[edit]

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon[edit]

Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

New Zaire (government in exile)[edit]

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt[edit]

Opay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. — Saqib (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::@Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding.~~ 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL, What made you say this? — Saqib (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @CNMall41, @Saqib, @Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggestedParwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. ~~The fact is that other website you cited are blogs.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.

I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:

This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.

You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?

Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN 2709-1317 – via AJOL.

Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).

Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.

Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.

Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:

this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.

I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [source1] [source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't misread what I've said. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be used to establish notability of the other. Nothing more, nothing less. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41, I don't know who you may be referring to, but experiences aren't measured by time besides age is just a number. If a new editor had read policies and still continue reading them, he/she can even do better than many years so-called experienced user. It's one of the arguments to avoid in a discussion. Analyse your points and give way for others, and not measuring people's days of editing here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. My comment was directed at your comment suggesting that HighKing misunderstands NCORP. Yes, time and experience gives people a better understand of how it applies (and has been applied over time). --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Let me get you, are you arguing the article doesn't meet WP:NCORP when it meets the general notability guidelines? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me get you"....I am not sure what this means and I want to AGF but sounds like baiting. I am the one who nominated it for deletion so it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines in my opinion or I would not have done it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have debated that the article meets WP:GNG and in general, supersedes all other forms of "additional criteria". Arguing that an article doesn't meet WP:NCORP is not necessary when it meets the general. From the argument so far, I have said how the article meets GNG, and why NCORP is correct when it only initiates that an article might be presumed notable. I have given links to Google Scholar, CSE, and other archives or information research places including Google news; all were to indicate what is called WP:SIGCOV. Can the opposing !voters really clarify whether the article doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or lowering it to an additional criteria that presumes notability if there is no GNG. Aside all, and to balance the status, I provided the links to show SIGCOV. What else is then needed for clarification here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem confused about how to implement our notability guidelines. GNG is a section within our WP:N guidelines which also has a section, WP:SNG dealing with specific topic areas and says "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". Unlike other topic areas, NCORP doesn't add any additional restrictions or criteria so in a real sense, there's no difference between GNG and NCORP, they're the "same" guidelines, with NCORP fine-tuned for this specific topic area, providing explicit guidelines on how to evaluate/ascertain the notability of corporations and organizations. The WP community have found it necessary to introduce SNG's for some topic areas because GNG is a general guideline and by its very nature, being general, can be vague and/or unclear and/or ambiguous when it comes to specific topic areas. Your argument that GNG "supercedes" all other forms of "additional criteria" is entirely incorrect and misconceived. The GNG and SNGs are all part of WP:N guidelines and if an SNG exists for a topic area, then according to WP:N, that's the one we use.
- With that in mind, the rest of your argument falls away. GNG does not "supercede" all other forms of "additional criteria" because there are no "additional criteria" in NCORP - and the logical extension means that if the topic fails NCORP it has also failed GNG since NCORP is simply providing the guidelines for the exact same criteria (albeit some criteria are applied in a stricter manner). In summary, once again and has been pointed out, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP for the reasons provided above with reference to specific sections within NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You may have taken the wrong words. No one is arguing about SNG here. Though SNG and GNG are parts of WP:N, it's a good imperative to note that when an article meets GNG, there is no more argument to make. Clearly you seem to disassociate the both because you keep saying it fails NCORPS when the article in question meets the criteria for GNG. I think the error here is that no one seem to have addressed the sources I provided. Aside that, I am leaning on a strong analysis of sources from the opposing !voters. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind responding to deal with specific sources or questions relating to how we implement guidelines, but at this stage, this is a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Your questions have been answered, you just need to accept the answers. Your sources have all been dealt with and they fail GNG/WP:NCORP. You are also dominating this discussion and you need to step back to allow others a chance to respond. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have also removed the source assessment table. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions[edit]

Ethiopia[edit]

Ethiopia Proposed deletions[edit]

Ghana[edit]

Bogo Blay[edit]

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. The reality show he won wasn't notable as it would have been redirected there. After accessing the sources, I can say this article's context, and sourcing is not enough for our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails MUSICIAN and GNG. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator, as the musician is only visible in his own social media and self-uploading sites, and the reality show victory is insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya[edit]

Nana Wanjau[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here:^[1]^[2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Munde, Claire (October 22, 2016). "I blend my charity work with personal growth". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya) – via Gale.
^ "No husband no dignity? Group helps widows rebuild their lives". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya). July 15, 2017 – via Gale.

Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one (link here) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be able to access Gale databases through your local public library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libya[edit]

Mauritius[edit]

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 no consensus‎. No new comments since the last relisting so, like the first AFD, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. Let's not see this article back for a third AFD for a year, how does that sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article. Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines or WP:NCORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (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.

Morocco[edit]

Nigeria[edit]

Wo Wo[edit]

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

I took a some time to dig sources and find the reason why this article meets WP:NSONG but can't find either. The song topped a non notable chart and hasn't been covered significantly in reliable news sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Chioma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Being a wife of a notable person doesn't mean the wife should be notable. No! It's WP:INHERITED. Besides, celebrities can be influential but not notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del - thoroughly nonnotable. - Altenmann >talk 09:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've reviewed the article and understand the nominee's concerns. While Chef Chioma may be a notable figure in Nigeria, the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish their notability on a national or international level. The content is also quite brief and doesn't provide enough context or depth to meet Wikipedia's standards. Based on these factors, I support the deletion of the article. - 2RDD Talk🔊 10:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jite Agbro[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Nigeria, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several of the references are SIGCOV from newspapers or magazines such as https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs I think they are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it if my page was not deleted, please tell me how to move forward. I did not write this page, and I'm not a regular Wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to do anything about this. OnaJiteA (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:OnaJiteA just edited this article to make it read like an autobiography (hence the username). I reverted the edit and warned the user. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did realize I was not supposed to edit this page, I got an email saying I should enhance it. I just updated it again, so my apologies. I will stop

editing it now OnaJiteA (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize I'm not supposed to edit the page OnaJiteA (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Uchendu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The individual in question appears to be a non-notable researcher and climate activist. There is no significant coverage of their work in reliable third-party sources. The existing references consist mainly of personal profiles or brief mentions. GSS ^💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. GSS ^💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Blaq[edit]

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

Upcoming comedian not notable for a page. References from unreliable sources and mostly trivial mentions Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming?? Nah, he's a blown stand up comedian in Nigeria 75DD (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Nasty Blaq is a well-known and accomplished comedian in Nigeria, but I still believe the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While he has a significant following in Nigeria, the reliable sources required to establish notability are lacking. 2RDD (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that this is not your real account the way I'm seeing it 75DD (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is worth keeping, but the sourcing needs to be improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of coverage seems to show this is a notable Nigerian celebrity (see for example https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/celebrities/comedian-nasty-blaq-bags-ambassadorial-deal-with-dubai-based-fashion-line/rxffl59) and that the subject meets the requirement for a page; deletion does not seem necessary but trimming does. I am not sure the mention of the cars he owns is of extreme interest, for instance, but maybe I'm wrong. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO as there is limited coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I think it's important to prioritize notability and ensure that our articles meet Wikipedia's standards. — talk 7:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]