Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yagga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. What little discussion of late sources has challenged them and despite an extra week no one has supported them. Since the consensus was otherwise to delete, here we are Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Yagga
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Yagga (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, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NBIO and WP:NOTPROMO, was previously draftified but it has been moved back to mainspace without the core sourcing issues being fixed. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Sudan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: a source review by somebody who is familiar with Nigerian media would be helpful. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
 |
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
These sources provide coverage beyond routine mentions, discussing the subject’s career development, audience growth, and broader media presence, which satisfies the requirement for significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing is independent and not limited to a single publisher or locality, indicating wider recognition. While individual sources may vary in depth, AfD is not a quality threshold for perfection, and the existing sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Any remaining issues are editorial and can be addressed through normal improvement rather than deletion. Deletion is not the appropriate remedy here. --BusyEditor (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | |
|
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
For reference, see the prior discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natanga70#Yagga_moved_to_draftspace Given that these issues were previously raised and addressed, any remaining concerns appear to be editorial and are better resolved through normal editing rather than deletion.Natanga70 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC) | |
- Keep: I see SIGCOV from multiple reliable publications such as The Nation, The Guardian and This Day just to mention a few – all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. While checking his socials, I came across a piece by Pulse magazine stating that he lost his TikTok. Otherwise, he is fairly notable as he is thoroughly discussed in RS. dxneo (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Kenya and Uganda. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete – All sources are either non-significant, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, or similarly promotional and unreliable reporting. This includes coverage listed above by another editor as reliable like The Guardian (check out some of the other undisclosed promotional slop that author has bylined ), The Nation (not even bylined, and for an org offering sponsored posts its weird I couldn't find any marked as such, bonus points for the site footer casino spam), This Day (non-bylined "featured" article about "The TikTok Sensation"s "journey to fame"), and Pulse (no byline, vapid coverage). Forgive me for the emphasis here but, all four of these articles were published 3 April, they're a coordinated marketing effort, not organic coverage. Some more 3 April sources from the article: .Side note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources isn't good, to examine one source there: This Day was added in this edit on the basis that it existed at Wikipedia:WikiProject AfroCine/Reliable Sources, and it existed there because one editor decided it should when making the page . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to note for any potential closer that consensus is determined
by the quality of the arguments given
. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to note for any potential closer that consensus is determined
- Keep: From an average review, I see multiple secondary sources, followers count , viral content as a content creator, he easily passes WP:GNG, I can see significant coverage, subject has publications across countries which usually indicates importance, in most cases, multiple secondary sources can establish notability, he easily passes WP:BASIC. is a reliable source, also the content here is assessed as a reliable independent source, having and a journalism byline. Allblessed (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Pulse, The Nation, and The Guardian (the byline makes this one worse actually) are 100% unreliable as detailed above. Follower count and viral content have nothing to do with WP:GNG, and the existence of multiple publications (even cross-countries) does not establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I've yet to see that. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve seen multiple reliable sources (also the niche of this subject is "Digital content creator", I can see he has established fanbase, coupled with been published on multiple secondary sources) that’s the reason I was able to drop my vote, I know how reputable those sources are, there is no doubt the subject is at least notable for a stand alone article. Allblessed (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Again, established fanbases and the mere existence of mention in multiple sources has no relevance to notability. The three sources you noted were part of a paid media push across 7+ platforms that occurred at the same time (as explained above), additionally two of the sources pointed out have no byline, and the listed author of the one that does is also attributed on undisclosed promotional LLM-generated slop like this. In light of this could you please how those sources are reputable for the purposes of establishing notability? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve seen multiple reliable sources (also the niche of this subject is "Digital content creator", I can see he has established fanbase, coupled with been published on multiple secondary sources) that’s the reason I was able to drop my vote, I know how reputable those sources are, there is no doubt the subject is at least notable for a stand alone article. Allblessed (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Pulse, The Nation, and The Guardian (the byline makes this one worse actually) are 100% unreliable as detailed above. Follower count and viral content have nothing to do with WP:GNG, and the existence of multiple publications (even cross-countries) does not establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I've yet to see that. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This poorly-written and poorly-sourced article undoubtedly fails WP:NBIO and should not remain on this website. Aneirinn (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Aneirinn, what do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Please link the sources that are not up to standard. As for poorly written, yes I agree, but almost every source if not all, cited in the article is listed at Nigerian sources, and they clarify SIGCOV. dxneo (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Presence of a source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources isn't a good indicator of reliability for reasons detailed above. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Dxneo: are you certain you read this article and what was cited before my edits? This article had sources that did not corroborate what was written; many things written in the article were not in the citations. Significant coverage is not present on this article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean the subject is not notable. The article might need a little clean up and maintenance, which can be done in minutes. Draftifying til the content is in sync with sources the wouldn't hurt. dxneo (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Dxneo: are you certain you read this article and what was cited before my edits? This article had sources that did not corroborate what was written; many things written in the article were not in the citations. Significant coverage is not present on this article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Presence of a source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources isn't a good indicator of reliability for reasons detailed above. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Aneirinn, what do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Please link the sources that are not up to standard. As for poorly written, yes I agree, but almost every source if not all, cited in the article is listed at Nigerian sources, and they clarify SIGCOV. dxneo (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: meets WP:GNG on the sources cited in the article. Stand-alone profiles are significant coverage, and these sources appear to be reliable (and independent), and there are a bunch of them.--BusyEditor (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Edibiz Which sources? could you point them out?
Stand-alone profiles are significant coverage
. Profiles? that sound most likely like AI hallucinations to me. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)- @Thilio, check out these sources: Pulse Uganda, Tuko Kenya, The Guardian and Mpasho. I agree not every profile is automatically strong, and any promotional or interview-style pieces should be treated cautiously. But where an independent newspaper gives focused coverage of the subject beyond passing mentions, I think that can still count toward WP:SIGCOV.
- --BusyEditor (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please see details above which I am +1 with it, from my point of view this becomes Sisyphean dialectic of the same sources. If there are new/old sources apart from the ones (
coordinated marketing effort, not organic coverage
) that has been cited in the article currently please point em out below the new RC. And please stop using bridge to nowhere see WP:AITALK. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)- I'll address the two sources not already covered above: Mpasho is a summary of an instagram video featuring majority quotes from Yagga and is not significant coverage. Tuko Kenya is also mostly a summary of a video from Yagga, not significant, additionally the parts that aren't summarizing the video are instead drawing from an interview, so not the most independent coverage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please see details above which I am +1 with it, from my point of view this becomes Sisyphean dialectic of the same sources. If there are new/old sources apart from the ones (
- @Edibiz Which sources? could you point them out?
- 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.