Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation


 * 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 keep. The article has improved since the AfD was started and consensus is that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  01:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Queried speedy delete as advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur. This reads like an advertisement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoluege (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would say stubify, and keep. But can understand if it gets deleted.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This nomination is silly. The nominator evidently failed WP:BEFORE. There are countless of references in several RS sources with detailed coverage . If the nominator bothered to check before making such a foolish nomination they would have found out for themselves. This is also a government organisation with great coverage, and as such, very notable. Any advertisement (as commented by one above) should be removed/edited. However, that in itself does not warrant deletion when the subject is covered in great detail by multiple RS. This is a silly nomination. If I earn a $ for every silly nominations brought to AFD just this week alone I'd be super rich. Perhaps we should start charging for silly nominations as this is getting ridiculous and rather time consuming. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your keep !vote, but please be calm about it. Thanks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Insulting fellow editors will not get you very far, Senegambianamestudy, if you must know. And neither does it lend support to your arguments. Quite the contrary. Try and be more civil, please. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Gnome - Referring to a silly nomination as "silly" is not a personal attack, but calling out the nomination for what it is (silly). I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wiki policy. Your condescending remarks can be viewed as a personal attack. If you have something of value to contribute to this discussion I suggest you do so. I have sat here and watched countless of African related articles brought to AFD on silly grounds which had the nominator bothered with WP:BEFORE would have saved us all a hell of a lot of time. Even as recently as last week where the nominator had to revoke their nomination when editors kept pointing them to numerous sources simply because they didn't do BEFORE. If you want to go back and forth with silly nominations or irrelevant stuff knock yourself out. I do not have the time. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you continue down the same path. Warning you that you engage in personal attacks can never be considered as attacking you personally. Deny it if you want but do not claim that my warning was an attack!
 * By the way, your response reveals the source of your anger. You're frustrated with what you perceive as the unjust treatment of Africa-related articles in English-language Wikipedia. I won't discuss whether or not your viewpoint is correct. I will only repeat that going about it the way you do will not get you anywhere. It'll only get you isolated, at the very least, while you need consensus to put across your views. So, it pays to be civil. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. If we assume that indeed too many Africa-related articles ar being deleted, then the reasons for it are potentially two: One, there's a bias against Africa-related subjects that dominates English-language Wikipedia. Or, two, a lot of Africa-related articles are created that do not meet the criteria required by the English-language Wikipedia. One of the two; or possibly some mix of the two: If you lean towards the first explanation, then you're essentially saying racists dominate Wikipedia; if you accept the second, then you agree that we have a lot of enthusiastic contributors from Africa. More power to them, I say! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with Senegambianamestudy response here. Poor AFD nominations are indeed "silly" in fact, that is a pretty tame word in my opinion compared to what they warrant. incorrect AFD nominations especially ones done by users who didn't WP:BEFORE are the single worst thing infected this encyclopedia, as not only to do eat away valuable time, but they lead to articles and knowledge being deleted.Egaoblai (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is something very wrong with Senegambianamestudy's response, Egaoblai. The response implies there is bias and most probably racism or some kind of anti-Africanism in the actions of fellow Wikipedia contributors. And if you find such accusations "tame" then you too you're in the wrong place.
 * Senega's supposed to have "sat here and watched countless of African related articles brought to AFD on silly grounds." What, pray, are those "silly grounds"? I've also participated in many AfDs about Africa related subjects and the typically common difficulty was locating sources. The rest is noise, raised by misguided emotions. There is no "agenda" here. If you think there is, take it upstairs. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you just stop insulting a fellow user who did nothing more than said an AFD was silly and criticized the lack of WP:BEFORE? Egaoblai (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The words speak for themselves. Criticism of ideas and opinions is entirely legitimate and, as for me, I don't mind it getting quite strong. But insinuating bias and racism is crossing the threshold into personal attacks. When someone objects to the existence of this article they're biased and a racist?! Give us a break! I'm not "insulting"; I'm suggesting: Both you and Senega better simmer down and leave the emotional verbiage out of the discussion. Concentrate on this AfD. If you had some past experiences with Africa-related AfDs in the past, take it upstairs. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. As it happens, i suggested that we "keep" this article up. I'm pointing that out just so that you can realize how silly your viewpoint is. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Gnome - Your behaviour is now getting out of control. Consider this a warning. If you continue with this unacceptable behaviour you will be reported. If you want to engage in nonsense keep it out of an AFD discussion and put it on your talk page and stop wasting our time or clogging this AFD with your foolishness. I explained my position very succinctly above and don't need to explain my position again just because your lack the capacity to get it the first time round. This is AFD. If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm sure the closing admin will ignore your foolish remarks when closing this AFD. Again, you have been warned. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reject, of course, your accusations, your threats and your "warnings" in their entirety. If you care to report and register some kind of complaint, by all means go ahead. You have accused editors of anti-Africa bias, with all that this implies and I called you on it. That's all there is to it. You're on your own now. -The Gnome (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — FR+ 10:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The text is full of bad English; the style sucks; the whole thing stinks. Yet this is the only state organisation that deals with tourism in Nigeria on the federal level. It's almost a ministry of Tourism. The sources prove it exists. That's enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the article is another matter, which needs serious attention. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The attempt to improve content continues. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced) but this article's ain't it. No value to the project. No sources to demonstrate that this meets WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article itself is a bit of a mess. I've cleaned it up a bit in case it's kept, though it needs more work. Based on the available sources I've found, there's definitely enough here to pass WP:GNG, including the news sources discussing the political appointents already in the article. It didn't seem to me to come off as an advertisement, and in any case it's easily fixed. SportingFlyer  talk  00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, but delete everything about Folorunsho Coker except his name and position. Also protect the article so it can't be easily reinserted. Deb (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent article improvements by ; has been sufficiently revised to demonstrate notability and reduce promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was a promotional mess when this AfD started, but since we have improved it, it now meets WP:NPOV and is clearly a notable organisation. Edwardx (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2018 (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.