Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Imoudu National Institute for Labour Studies


 * 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 merge to Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Imoudu National Institute for Labour Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORGCRIT a before search threw up run of the mill appointment notices and press releases. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is part of the Nigerian government then I am inclined to think it may be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a very very large number of organisations and institutes that are government organisations but not all are notable. This is an institute that delivers diplomas but not degrees. And as per WP:NSCHOOL it should meet WP:ORGCRIT and this one doesn't. There is nothing about how many staff there are nor how many students there are we know almost nothing about this organisation. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The question is not how good or complete the article is. It's whether the organisation is notable.  Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry I should have been clearer, none of the sources give us this information, I checked them out before nominating. That notability is not shown by the sources or suggested by the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot of coverage of the Board and this on its relationship with the government. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source, I looked at it and it is basically a press release, in the second paragraph it says "Minister of State for Labour and Employment Prof. Stephen Ocheni, who made this known to a group of select journalists in his office," The whole article is just a series of quotes from the minister, there is nothing written by the journalist himself over and above the introduction which states the reason for this meeting. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a government institute. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply being a government institute is not an automatic pass on notability unless you have any guideline that backs up your !vote that I may have missed? --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Coverage does not have to be original. Most reporting about organisations is essentially based on press releases and interviews. If it was thought notable enough to be covered by an independent source that is significant. I share the view that government organisations are generally notable. The burden of proof is less than in respect of commercial organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This a significant government institution. The article is sourced and non-promotional. Plainly, an article is merited. I see no benefit in 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' type of consideration as to whether notability is technically met. Indeed, the preamble to WP:N states: " ... though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply ...". If necessary this is  case where commonsense needs to be applied and an occasional exception can be made. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with the analysis of it being a significant institution. On their courses page it states that "As many as 60 young Nigerians and 20 adults have so far graduated from the Institute’s National Diploma Programme which commenced 3 years ago." There are 4 diploma courses so this equates to an average 20 per course over 3 years. This is not what I would call a significant institute. Common sense suggests that guidelines should be applied. Just as an aside on on this page it claims 20,203 students enrolled for 139 lecturers which is actually a template web site from here  with exactly the same figures. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, or Merge (to Federal Ministry of Labour): This is non-notable and attempts to assert inherent notability is generally not a good argument. There seems to be some confusion. This is a State-owned enterprise (SOE), or business enterprise and as such fails ORGCRIT per Nom. An SOE is not the same as a government agency, state entity, or significant government institution. It is not a federal arm or even division within the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, which appears to be an outdated title as according to that article it was renamed the Ministry of Labour in January 2007, but simply a for profit government-owned agency. I am amazed there would be some far-fetched notion that "press releases and interviews" would suffice in lieu of reliable sources. A source can be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability so a merge would be appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity. Per WP:inherent. We are close to re-creation since more sources will be available in future. lorstaking 12:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is quite a common problem with African topics - they aren't covered in nearly as many online sources as their counterparts in the western world. But honestly, if this federal-level institute were translated to an equivalent body in the US, Canada or the UK, it would be almost beyond doubt that it would be notable. So I think we should presume the same here. I find it likely that there is a good body of paper-based sources to be found on the ground in Nigeria, which would give us a GNG pass. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I disagree because in my experience of NPP there are often a very great deal of sources in Africain articles. According to Telecommunications_in_Nigeria there are 67 million users of internet ranking it 8th in the world and according to Media_in_Nigeria and the BBC internet usage and media coverage is very strong in Nigeria, according to the BBC 86 million Nigerians are online. Also if I may be so bold normally WP:MUSTBESOURCES is usually an argument to be avoided in an AFD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity seems a good idea. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.