 | Points of interest related toNigeria on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category –WikiProject –Alerts –Deletions –Cleanup –Stubs –Assessment |
 |
| Deletion Sorting Project |
|---|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toNigeria. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related toAfrica.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| Purge page cache | watch |
Subject literally fails all notability guidelines I could test; not anywhere nearWP:NAUTHOR, not close toWP:GNG either, as acursory search did not reveal anything useful. Nothing close toWP:ANYBIO as well.Vanderwaalforces (talk)08:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject failsWP:GNG orWP:ENTERTAINER. There are notindependent and reliable sources covering itsubstantiallyat the same time, to establish any substance of notability.Vanderwaalforces (talk)12:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used cannot be used to establish any substance ofWP:GNG. They're mostlynot independent, or do not providesignificant coverage.Vanderwaalforces (talk)10:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 | Text generated by alarge language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed perrelevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus. |
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | |
Comment by Contributor (Support Keep)[edit]This article has been significantly improved and now meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. 1. Reliable Sources: The updated version cites multiple independent, third-party Nigerian national newspapers such asThe Guardian Nigeria,Vanguard Nigeria,Independent Nigeria,The Nation, andAuthority NGR. These sources have all published full-length articles aboutTmy News and its parent companyTMY Empire, confirming independent coverage and verifiability. 2. Notability: Tmy News has been featured consistently between 2013–2025 for its contributions to digital journalism, innovation, and media development. Its recognition by top-tier outlets and partnerships (such as with the CoolWealth Awards) clearly satisfy theWP:ORG andWP:GNG guidelines for organizational notability. 3. Neutrality and Structure: The article has been rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, with proper sections (History, Operations, Recognition) and formatted citations. Promotional wording was removed. I’m open to further improvements or citation formatting if needed, but I believe Tmy News now clearly meets the inclusion criteria for established Nigerian media organizations. Major References:
Conclusion: The current version of the article now satisfies Wikipedia’s requirements for verifiability, reliability, and general notability. Keeping it would preserve accurate documentation of one of Nigeria’s emerging digital media organizations. ~~ | |
— Precedingunsigned comment added byFlash1890 (talk •contribs)08:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained inWP:NCORP andWP:ORGCRIT.Charlie (talk)02:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going through your links one by one: the first link is written by employees of the org and is thus not independent. The second link has one sentence of independent discussion on the org (the rest are from an interview which would be a primary source). The third link doesn't say anything at all about the org, it's just mentioning some stuff they did (seeWP:ORGDEPTH). The fourth link has the same issue as the second link. The fifth link I'm like 70% sure is covert advertising and regardless it's an interview, and thus a primary source. The sixth link is definitely the best except for the fact that this outlet doesn't seem to disclose sponsored articles despite allowing them according to its media kit, and finally link seven says it's a sponsored post at the top of the page.Perryprog (talk)00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source towardGNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Healthwise |  | |  Organization is barely mentioned. | ✘No |
Independent | ~ Overwhelmingly promotional tone, and theyseem to accept sponsored content but I can't find any articles from them with such a disclaimer, which makes me think it's covert advertising. |  See previous. | | ?Unknown |
Anambra (2025-08-17) | | | Does not meetWP:ORGDEPTH. | ✘No |
Frontiers | Written by employees of Sydani | They claim there's no conflict of interest?? | | ✘No |
Vanguard (2025) | | | Barely mentioned. | ✘No |
Punch (2023) | | | Does not meetWP:ORGDEPTH. | ✘No |
Guardian Nigeria | Interview with no synthesis, not a secondary source. Also seems like covert advertising but that's besides the point. | | Doesn't really meetWP:ORGDEPTH. | ✘No |
Punch (2024) | | | Passing mentions | ✘No |
Daily Post | Sponsored article. | | Still doesn't meetWP:ORGDEPTH. | ✘No |
Anambra (2025) | | | Passing mentions. | ✘No |
Nigerian Observer | Accepts sponsored posts but I can't find any articles where sponsership is disclosed, meaning this could be a covert ad. Final paragraph also is extremely suspect. | | | ✘No |
Tribune (2023) | | | Passing mentions. | ✘No |
Vanguard (2024) | | | Passing mentions. | ✘No |
Tribune (2024) | | | No discussion of the organization itself. | ✘No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}. | ||||
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the [...] organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements [...]. Nothing in this article actually talks about the company itself—it's all about this one thing the company did, which is not the same thing—there aren't really any statements that provide information about the company, which as I understand is the key thing here.
For Healthwise, I'm not sure I can agree that the org features prominently in that article—they are barely mentioned, and it's almost all mentioned as part of an interview, which isn't a secondary source. The only mention of the org that's outside of the interview is in a single sentence. The other Punch piece seems to be based on the same interview and has the same issue.
Finally for the Observer, I will concede that this isn't a definitive reason to dismiss it, but accepting payments for sponsored posts (as their media kit says they do) while also not seeing any posts that have any sort of disclaimer that they are sponsored is a pretty big red flag. This in combination with the post being entirely positive and incredibly promotional in tone (just look at the last paragraph) is really stretching it for me that this was independently written. If there are posts that are marked as sponsored that I missed then I would agree that it's possibly independent, but I strongly doubt that this is the case. (Plus, nearly all the statements in the article are entirely meaningless, insubstantial marketing copy. "The organization is committed to implementing impactful, data-driven solutions that empower communities across Africa and has become pivotal in driving sustainable change." )Perryprog (talk)14:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]