Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nafiu Bala Rabiu


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nafiu Bala Rabiu

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Strong possible COI for a promotional non notable Nigerian “business man” & Entrepreneur” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not meet our notability threshold. A before search links me to press releases and unreliable sources that have the staff reporter as “guest editor” indicating an invited guest which appears to be promotional. The sources used in the article mirrors a before search which show a plethora of unreliable source and unreliable pieces. Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Per nom. Either delete or redirect to the article of one of his relatives. (see Abdul Samad Rabiu and Isyaku Rabiu). HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete! per nom.  User:Em-mustapha  talk 16:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep! I feel he passes GNG. Though articles are from reliable sources but seems more of promotion/interview. See Dailytrust, Vanguard, This Day and Leadership. Moshswacide (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — Noting that the editor above is the article creator. The Daily trust source is an interview thus not independent of the subject and can’t count towards notability. The Vanguard source has an empty byline and the piece itself is overtly promotional thus indicative of a sponsored material or an op-Ed, either of which would not count towards notability as are unreliable. The This day source expressly states it was written by a guest editor, thus an unreliable piece. The fourth and last source you linked above, The leadership ng source is literally a press release. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — Clearly understood, now I get it. Thanks for the in-depth explanation. Kindly do what is necessary, either delete, redirect or move it to draft. Moshswacide (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2022 (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.