Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royalnasty: Difference between revisions

Royalnasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are not WP:RS as they are sponsored or featured posts and they are written possible by a single individual. See these[1][2] and here[3][4] are all promotional efforts. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m not going to weigh in but is anyone else getting a weird vibe from the random appearances of multiple Uganda-based editors, all of whom are writing in a similar style and voting Keep?…… aesurias (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: none of the Keep comments provide policy based argument why this article should be kept and the tone of the last two keep above sound similar. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first and third keep arguments are not policy-based. The second one is, but does not actually provide any links to any of the alleged coverage, so it is not particularly convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to know more about the existing Nigerian sources + whether they are considered reliable or useful for establishing notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The nominator is judging based on comments. However, Royalnasty’s sources are reliable, not promotional. More sources have been added, and they still provide significant coverage. I suggest going through it again. Añtonīo (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability rules because there are several independent and reliable news sources that give clear and meaningful coverage. Some small blogs repeat the same stories (which is common), but there is still enough original reporting from good sources to show notability. A Google News search also shows many independent results, for example:

This shows the subject is notable enough for inclusion. —BusyEditor (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources are all promotional WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Not a notable individual. 🄻🄰 14:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to the WP:RSNG list of generally-reliable sources for Nigeria-related information, all the sources cited in the article are reliable except Champion News. The first link quoted by the nom, which is clearly flagged “Featured” seems to have been removed from the article. I’m not sure why the nom stated that the others are sponsored or featured as I’m not seeing any evidence of that. There’s enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the article IMHO.–DesiMoore (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although some of the sources appear to come from generally reliable Nigerian media outlets, the specific articles cited do not demonstrate independent coverage. Most lack identifiable bylines, were published within the same short time frame, and present the subject in a promotional or routine-profile manner rather than offering significant, critical, or in-depth analysis.