Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria

Nigeria Airways Flight 357

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

Article previously PROD'ed, as not notable due to lack of sources and SIGCOV. An editor has added two sources, however I remain less than convinced that WP:GNG can be met for this event. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV beyond a number of newspaper articles, with coverage petering out very rapidly after the incident. That's quite aside from the fact I see no purpose in retaining an article consisting of six sentences and an infobox. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Nigeria. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment My belief is that the two newspaper articles are what meets SIGCOV. Wikipedia:Notability#significant_coverage states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If each article has SIGCOV, and there are at least two articles, then notability should be met.

In any event, typically a crash of a commercial airliner with passenger deaths is going to be treated as notable. This is not policy, but a de facto practice I've observed over the years.

Additionally, note that both sources are from the United States. This crash happened in Nigeria, and at minimum there should be ample coverage from Nigerian media of the 1990s, even if it is not easily accessible from the internet.

I also notified three WikiProjects to get additional feedback.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

An update: This article states "The spate of plane crashes in the last six months in the country have been attributed" to a political change in Nigeria, and the PM News article is from February 9, 1996. While it does not name this crash by name, the topic crash occurred on November 13, 1995. I'm checking Nigerian newspapers to see which ones mention this crash by name. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I am officially stating Keep on the basis of this newspaper article from the UK, in that it stated that the effect is that there was a feeling of lack of safety at the time. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Miichkel

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

This music producer is mainly known as the producer of Finesse (Pheelz song). This article was submitted as a draft by a temporary account and accepted by a reviewer who is under investigation for possible undisclosed paid editing. The sources either appear to be written by the subject's publicist, or are primarily about Finesse (Pheelz song).

More information Source accessment, Number ...

Source accessment

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Meets GNG	Meets NMUSIC
1	https://thenativemag.com/pheelz-bnxn-new-single-finesse/	About an album produced by one of the subject's artists - Passing mention of subject	Yes	No - Passing mention	Yes ?	Yes	No	No
2	https://notjustok.com/news/pheelz-bnxn-finesse/	About an album produced by the same artist - Passing mention of subject	Yes	No - Passing mention	Yes ?	Yes	No	No
3	https://tribuneonlineng.com/miichkel-the-promising-producer-crafting-magnificence-and-the-future-of-nigerian-sound/	Reads like it was written by a publicist	No	Yes	Yes?	N/A	No	No
4	https://www.turntablecharts.com/news/682	Article about the subject - Reads promotionally	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
5	https://www.billboard.com/music/awards/2023-headies-awards-nominations-full-list-burna-boy-1235396273/	A list of awards, including for Finesse - No mention of subject	Yes	No - No mention of subject	Yes	Yes	No	No
6	https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/581354-soundcity-mvp-awards-2023-burnaboy-kizz-daniel-win-full-winners-list.html?tztc=1	A description of awards, including for Finesse - No mention of subject	Yes	No - No mention of subject	Yes	Yes	No	No

The subject producer is primarily known for Finesse (Pheelz song), and should be redirected to the song.

Redirect to Finesse (Pheelz song) as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Loveworld Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging to Christ Embassy(Added) because Christ Embassy AKA Loveworld Incorporated is the corporate parent of this non notable former label. Deletion review here refers. The page was WP:SOFTMERGEd following a previous discussion, but the merge decision was to the wrong target (Chris Oyakhilome). There is almost nothing mergeable, but we could use the first two sentences at the target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Christianity, and Nigeria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy Do you have a better target in mind? FaviFake (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Oops, yes. Christ Embassy. I'll wkilink that in the nom. too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

King Kaly

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

King Kaly

This article was submitted as a draft by a temporary account and accepted by a reviewer who is under investigation for possible undisclosed paid editing. Review of the sources shows that the first source is a report of an interview, and so not independent, and the next five appear to have been written by the subject's publicist, and so are not independent. The seventh source is a list of 20 TikTok influencers, which does appear to be independent coverage. However, it doesn't name the subject.

More information Number, Reference ...

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Meets GNG
1	https://dailypost.ng/2025/04/22/we-all-need-people-who-believe-in-us-tiktok-king-idongesit-reveals-what-inspired-his-success/	An interview	No. Interview.	Yes	Yes	N/A	No
2	https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/07/how-tiktoker-king-kaly-is-making-waves-beyond-social-media/	Obviously written by the subject's publicist	No.	Yes	N/A	N/A	No
3	https://independent.ng/i-prefer-to-be-called-king-kaly-instead-of-tiktok-king-idongesit-isemin/	An interview with advertorial comments.	No.	Yes	Yes	N/A	No
4	https://punchng.com/why-i-merge-entertainment-with-charity-tiktok-king/	Written by the subject's publicist	No	Yes	N/A	N/A	No
5	https://thenationonlineng.net/tiktok-king-bags-recognition-for-outstanding-performance-in-uk/	Written by the subject's publicist	No	No (not significant coverage)	N/A	N/A	No
6	https://www.talk-business.co.uk/2026/05/19/king-kaly-launches-kingdom-family-agency/	Written by the subject's publicist	No	Yes	N/A	N/A	No
7	https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/01/top-20-tiktok-influencers-driving-new-era-of-digital-power-in-nigeria-2025/	A list of top TikTok influencers	Yes	No. Not in the list.	Yes	Yes	No

What we know is that the subject knows how to use media. That results in coverage, but it isn't independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Nigeria. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Source assessment looks sound to me. I saw this at WT:NPP/R and I'm glad someone is taking action. Spam, begone! MediaKyle (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete - per source analysis. Many of the sentences fail verification as well: Citation 1 doesn't support "Isemin was born in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria", citation 5 doesn't support "he was also named Best TikTok Battle Host by TikTok UK", and citation 7 doesn't support "named him among twenty Nigerian TikTok influencers it described as driving a new era of digital power in Nigeria." InfernoHues (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete - I was hoping to nominate a few myself.

Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 02:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete Thank you for the source assessment. I full-throatedly concur.Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete - sources that don't back up facts are either written by 14-year-old boys or AI. Bearian (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadiq Abubakar III International Airport

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

Fails GNG - only sources are primary sources which serve only to verify existence. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I consider myself to be a Deletionist, but in this case I’ve contested a PROD and now I’m !voting Keep. The airport serves a State capital of Nigeria, a city with a population of half a million in a state of more than six million; I think its notability is basically intrinsic. The person suggesting deletion has removed information about airlines operating to the airport because it was unsourced, but it stands to reason that a State capital has scheduled flights to and from its airport; it seems to me that it’d be more useful to try to find sources than to delete the information and then immediately PROD the article, not to mention take it to AfD immediately after the PROD tag is removed. The subject may not be notable to a person outside Nigeria, but this is the English Wikipedia, the official language of the country is English and it is the third-most populous Anglophone country, nine times as many people as the population of my country (Australia). YSSYguy (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
General Notability however is based on its coverage by independent sources - and as of right now, there is not a single source covering this article beyond primary sources serving only to verify the existence of the location.

As for your contested PROD… it would be rather nice for you to explain WHY you are contesting it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I contested the PROD for the reasons stated above. YSSYguy (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it would’ve been good if you’d explained that in your edit summary instead of just “remove PROD tag” Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get back to discussing the article instead of using your comments here, my Talk page and your edit summaries to admonish me over my shortcomings as a human being, including my inability to fit a version of my comment above into an edit summary. Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, the way my brain works basically boils down to “if X applies to J, and J is the same as Q apart from some minor criterion (such as location), then X must also apply to Q”. Which is to say, if the article about this airport should be deleted due to the subject failing to meet the GNG, then the articles about much of the world’s infrastructure ought to go as well, including the articles about ninety percent of the airports in Australia. Either an airport serving a major city is intrinsically notable or it isn’t. If it isn’t, I am certain that the airport receives significant coverage within Nigeria. It was trivially easy to find YouTube videos, Facebook posts, TikToks and the like containing information about the airport such as upgrades. I don’t live in Nigeria (and I daresay the Nom doesn’t either) and I’m not on Facebook or any other social media either, so it’s functionally impossible for me to evaluate the importance of social media content as a means of disseminating official information in Nigeria and it’s also functionally impossible for me to access much in the way of mainstream media in Nigeria. (I have noticed that even here in Australia, the use of Facebook by businesses and organisations in lieu of a proper website is rife, which I find to be very annoying, but I digress). As I noted above, English is the official language of Nigeria and this is the English-language Wikipedia, therefore it is a resource for Nigerians as much as it is for Singaporeans or New Zealanders or Guamanians or Canadians or Americans - countries where things that mean nothing at all to an Australian such as myself have significant local notability. YSSYguy (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Social media content doesn’t establish notability - significant coverage by secondary, reliable sources does. And I am unable to find such significant coverage, and the article contains precisely zero secondary sources. That in itself makes the article fail GNG. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion of notability. Focus on content. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It’s easy to dismiss social media - I have a low opinion of it - but what if social media is a major medium of official communication in Nigeria? I don’t know if that’s the case and I doubt that you know either, but as I alluded to above, there is evidence of that being the case. That aside, at what point did you try to improve the situation regarding notability via finding significant coverage online? After all, you have been very busy:

At 10:52 UTC on 20 June you posted a comment at the Talk page of Project:Aviation (diff); six minutes later came this edit to an article about an airport (a little bit careless, because you undid an edit that removed the statement “begins 15 June” along with the source and didn’t remove said statement as part of or subsequent to your reversion - don’t worry though, someone else did it 34 hours later); immediately after (same timestamp) came this edit; at 11:02 you made your next edit, another reversion, immediately posted a standard message at the IP’s Talk page () and made another reversion (diff), then at 11:03 posted a standard message at that User’s Talk page (diff); also at 11:03 was an edit to another airport article, another reversion (diff), followed by another posting of a standard message at the responsible IP’s Talk page at 11:04 (diff).

Also at 11:04 UTC on 20 June was your first-ever edit to the article we are now discussing (diff), another reversion, then a second edit (diff), then by 11:06 the article we are discussing now had a PROD tag (diff). You then did PROD-related things for the next one-to-two-minutes, including posting a message at the Talk page of the article’s creator (for which I admire your diligence, that User hasn’t made any edits for two years, I’m certain that I would not have gone to the effort of doing that - but why did you not also post any messages to the Talk pages for Project:Aviation or Project:Airports? After all, there’d likely be more involvement in this discussion if you had - it’s purely by chance that I even came across the article we are discussing.) and finishing at 11:07 with you adding the subject of this discussion to your personal PROD log. By 11:10 you moved on to other things (), () and made no more edits to the article we are discussing until I had the temerity to remove the PROD tag at 10:41 UTC on 27 June, and six minutes later you started the AfD process (diff).

You were obviously going gangbusters during those intervening six minutes (, , , , , , and ), so I think I can safely say that the answer to my question is “at no point” - at best you made no more than a few seconds’ effort to find significant mentions and I daresay you gave the article no further thought after you PRODded it, judging by the number of edits you made elsewhere afterwards (~590 edits in the 166 hours and 40-odd minutes between the PROD and the AfD nomination, I am impressed, in the last nineteen years I haven’t often made that many edits in a month, never in a week). You certainly have made no effort to improve the article and you have shot down most of my efforts to do so. YSSYguy (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Having read precisely half of that, I'm not going to bother any further. Other editors are free to do what they want - not what you think should be done. And the fact you believe that I don't do things when I'm not editing is astounding. I'm not going to defend my conduct here because discussions about conduct have absolutely zero place on an AfD, this discussion is about the article and only the article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Nigeria. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, no opposition to a redirect to List of airports in Nigeria#Airports should a consensus arise to do so – WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In addition, I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. The two recently added sources include a source only containing a short mention of the airport and the second one is the final report of an aviation accident that happened at the airport. The other sources that already existed prior to the nomination are, as the nominator stated, "primary sources which serve only to verify existence." I was only able to find passing mentions on Google Books ( ). Same on Google Scholar (, etc...). Searches on Google only revealed passing mentions ( ) or unreliable sources. Social media is not a reliable source and should not be used to determine notability (unless in very rare cases if the accounts are reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment again, I point out that there is evidence that social media is used in Nigeria to disseminate official information (including Facebook and Instagram accounts that show up in search results, but which I am unable to actually view and assess due to not having a presence on social media), including about the subject of the article. In addition, significant coverage is available elsewhere: (2026) - “The airport is a gateway not just to Sokoto, but to the entire North-Western region. These infrastructure upgrades are crucial for enhancing passenger experience and facilitating regional development” (2026) - “strategic importance of Sokoto as a major hub for Hajj operations in Nigeria” (2018) (2018) (2018) (2026) (2024) - “no fewer than six different airlines have now commenced flights and patronage to the Sokoto routes in a bid to meet up with the high passenger demands. Among other reasons that have been attributed to the surge in air traffic on the Sokoto route is the significant and strategic importance of the state as the seat of the caliphate.” (2016) (2014) (2025) (2026) (2009) (2013) (2016) (2018) (2019) and more besides, easily found by a Google search for “Sokoto airport”.

Combined, the sources demonstrate that the airport is an important element of Nigeria’s infrastructure, especially Sokoto State’s infrastructure; that the terminal building was badly-damaged in a storm in 1984, that there have been several upgrade programs in addition to the rebuilding of the terminal, that there have been varying numbers of airlines serving the airport, that it was used by the Nigerian Air Force as a temporary base during operations against local banditry, that it is an important departure point for Hajj flights to Jeddah, that there was a tarmac invasion in August 2018 when a politician arrived there, which sparked nationwide discussion about the security of Nigeria’s airports and how they are perceived internationally (information removed from the article by the nominator for deletion). The subject is not a private airstrip used only by an oil company to access its production facility in a remote corner of the country, it is an airport for a state capital; the article is not based on a satellite image on Google Maps, as is the case with another ‘airfield’ in Nigeria that the nominator PRODded. It puzzles me that it was ever PRODded in the first place, considering how easy it was to find online references as I sit in rural Australia dealing with a crappy internet connection. My now-condensed comments above speak to that puzzlement. Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, I seriously doubt that there would ever be a deletion discussion about an airport serving a state or provincial capital elsewhere, such as Helena, Montana in the US; or Yellowknife, Northwest Territories in Canada. YSSYguy (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment – An analysis of the sources presented above reveals that none of the sources meet WP:GNG's requirement ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") Some of the sources contain enough coverage of the airport but are not reliable. The rest do not contain significant coverage of the airport and are mostly short mentions:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
20			"He also announced the approval of additional works on the ongoing construction of the Sultan Abubakar International Airport protocol terminal, saying consultants handling the project recommended further upgrades to enhance the facility. He said that the additional airport works were approved at the cost of N884.6 million, while the council also approved the construction of a livestock services centre at the airport for N398.6 million."	✘ No
21	~ Consists a lot of quotes.		Mainly discussions of the construction of a road that will link to the airport.	✘ No
22	Press release of involved parties, not independent.		Not even about the same airport (upcoming Sokoto State Hajj Airport).	✘ No
23			Only talks about an incident at the airport, no significant coverage.	✘ No
24			Only talks about an incident at the airport and at other airports, no significant coverage.	✘ No
25			Only talks about an incident at the airport and at other airports, no significant coverage.	✘ No
26			Not even about the same airport (upcoming Sokoto Hajj Airport).	✘ No
27			No significant coverage, just discussions as to why there has been an increase in traffic at the airport and the Sokoto route.	✘ No
28			No significant coverage, this is all it talks about: "The Federal Government has commenced the airlift of Muslim pilgrims with the inaugural flight to Saudi Arabia from the Sultan Abubakar III Airport, Sokoto on Monday."	✘ No
29		Master's theses are not reliable unless they have had a demonstrable impact, which this one does not.		✘ No
30			No significant coverage, only talks about a road linking to the airport.	✘ No
31			No significant coverage: "He also disclosed that the council approved additional works on the ongoing construction of the Sultan Abubakar International Airport protocol terminal. The extra works, recommended by consultants, were approved at ₦884.6 million. Dantsoho added that the council approved the construction of a livestock services centre at the airport for ₦398.6 million."	✘ No
32			I can't access the entirety of the article, so it's unknown if this has significant coverage.	? Unknown
33		No editorial information nor any proof of an editorial board on its About Us page. Unsure of its reliability here but I'd lean towards unreliable.		? Unknown
34			Only talks about a NOTAM involving the airport.	✘ No
35			Only talks about an incident that occurred at the airport.	✘ No
36			Only talks about the Nigerian Air Force being deployed at the airport.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment by Aviationwikiflight and have modified the table accordingly. My assessment is below, with Aviationwikiflight‘s comments included in square brackets:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
20			["He also announced the approval of additional works on the ongoing construction of the Sultan Abubakar International Airport protocol terminal, saying consultants handling the project recommended further upgrades to enhance the facility. He said that the additional airport works were approved at the cost of N884.6 million, while the council also approved the construction of a livestock services centre at the airport for N398.6 million."] Comment: one of multiple independent sources discussing ongoing works to upgrade the airport. See also comment at 31 below.	? Unknown
21	[Consists a lot of quotes.] Comment: This is of no relevance as to the independence of the source.		[Mainly discussions of the construction of a road that will link to the airport.] Comment: one of multiple independent sources discussing ongoing works to upgrade the airport, including a new lounge for VIP passengers. Includes the quote: "The airport is a gateway not just to Sokoto, but to the entire North-Western region. These infrastructure upgrades are crucial for enhancing passenger experience and facilitating regional development." It appears that the Nigerian government thinks that the airport is significant.	? Unknown
22	Press release of involved parties, not independent.		[~~Not even about the same airport (upcoming Sokoto State Hajj Airport).~~] Incorrect: the Sokoto State Hajj airport is the airport we are discussing. This press release - we are allowed to use media releases - and the video (26) from 2026, as well as the article 28 below (from 2016) go to demonstrate the importance of the airport to the region in annual Hajj flight operations. Other articles from various years (including 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018) regarding Hajj flight operations at Sokoto are also available online.	? Unknown
23			[Only talks about an incident at the airport, no significant coverage.] Disagree: this source as well as 24, 25 and 35 below, are all discussing a breach of security at the airport, in which hundreds of people went onto the apron in front of the terminal, preventing an arriving aircraft from parking on said apron. The coverage is in multiple news outlets on different days, therefore it constitutes significant coverage of an event in the history of the airport.	✔ Yes
24			[Only talks about an incident at the airport and at other airports, no significant coverage.] Disagree: See Comment about 23 above. YSSYguy	✔ Yes
25			[Only talks about an incident at the airport and at other airports, no significant coverage.] Disagree: See Comment about 23 above. YSSYguy	✔ Yes
26			[~~Not even about the same airport (upcoming Sokoto Hajj Airport).~~] Incorrect: the Sokoto State Hajj airport is the airport we are discussing. Also see Comment about 22 above. YSSYguy	? Unknown
27			[No significant coverage, just discussions as to why there has been an increase in traffic at the airport and the Sokoto route.] Comment: goes to demonstrate the evolution of air traffic at the airport at a point in its history	? Unknown
28			[No significant coverage, this is all it talks about: "The Federal Government has commenced the airlift of Muslim pilgrims with the inaugural flight to Saudi Arabia from the Sultan Abubakar III Airport, Sokoto on Monday."] Comment: see Comment about 22 above. YSSYguy	? Unknown
29		[Master's theses are not reliable unless they have had a demonstrable impact, ~~which this one does not~~.]	Comment: provides some information about the history of the airport; the thesis is based on the then-new terminal being so badly damaged by a storm in 1984 that it was demolished and rebuilt, a significant event in the history of the airport. I would write the event into the history section: “two years after the airport was opened, in May 1984 the terminal building was so badly damaged by a storm that it had to be rebuilt” or something similar. The thesis has far more detail than that, among other things it states that the terminal was designed by a Dutch company, that the design failed to take into account the local wind conditions, the unusual failure mode - the roof came off the building in one piece and remained intact - and that a helicopter was destroyed by wind at the airport in 1983. It is likely that the research used for the thesis was also used to redesign the terminal and that the thesis’ author assisted in the redesign and used his work to apply for his Master’s degree (as discussed in the last ten pages of the thesis). I am not in a position to judge whether this thesis had an impact in designing other local buildings built since 1984 to withstand local wind conditions. From my reading of the thesis, the possibility exists that it did have a demonstrable impact in this respect, but I can’t prove that four decades later from where I am; it cannot be dismissed as not having such an impact.	? Unknown
30			[No significant coverage, only talks about a road linking to the airport.] Comment: one of multiple independent sources discussing ongoing works to upgrade the airport, including the access road and a new VIP passenger lounge.	? Unknown
31			[No significant coverage: "He also disclosed that the council approved additional works on the ongoing construction of the Sultan Abubakar International Airport protocol terminal. The extra works, recommended by consultants, were approved at ₦884.6 million. Dantsoho added that the council approved the construction of a livestock services centre at the airport for ₦398.6 million."] Disagree, the article states that the equivalent of an extra million US dollars on top of what has already been spent, is being spent on further works at the airport, in a country where US$200 a month is a decent wage. Also one of multiple independent sources discussing ongoing works to upgrade the airport; the article in isolation does not have a lot to say, but when taken with other articles it is clearly part of widespread coverage of the subject - widespread coverage that the Nigerian government is spending a lot of money on the airport.	? Unknown
32			[I can't access the entirety of the article, so it's unknown if this has significant coverage.] Comment: one of multiple independent sources across more than a decade discussing ongoing works to upgrade the airport. The subject of the article is the airport, it discusses the airport and its importance to the region.	✔ Yes
33		[No editorial information nor any proof of an editorial board on its About Us page. Unsure of its reliability here but I'd lean towards unreliable.] Disagree with the assessment as to reliability (article is from 2013 and website is still going, doesn’t appear to have a particular bias).		? Unknown
34			[~~Only talks about a NOTAM involving the airport.~~] Incorrect: The article demonstrates that the airport was closed while there were upgrades to its infrastructure, that it had reopened after the upgrades were complete, details the nature of the upgrades, and mentions in passing that a NOTAM had been issued stating that the airport had officially been reopened.	✔ Yes
35			[Only talks about an incident that occurred at the airport.] Disagree: See Comment about 23 above. YSSYguy	✔ Yes
36			[Only talks about the Nigerian Air Force being deployed at the airport.] Comment: The deployment of Air Force combat jets, reconnaissance aircraft and helicopters to the airport to engage in anti-‘bandit’ operations is a significant event in the history of this civilian airport. YSSYguy	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This whole debate - including my previous comments - has so far ignored any but online sources. The building of a new airport for a state capital would have been a big deal in any country in the world in the late 1970s-early ‘80s; it is safe to assume that there would have been contemporary coverage in Nigerian media of the need to replace the old airport, the decision to construct the airport, the construction of the airport and the opening of the airport, and of the damage to the terminal building in 1984 - and of other events concerning the airport prior to the advent of the internet, such as the crash of a BAC 1-11 airliner in 1992. The online sources - only some of which are presented here - demonstrate ongoing coverage of the airport over a period of decades, such coverage showing more than the mere existence of the airport. YSSYguy (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get some input from new users. I get the impression the back and forth that we have going on is not helping anyone
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Bashorun Olalekan

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

Fails WP:NPROF. 🄻 🄰 17:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 17:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment, this is a very poor page, with some errors including when he was Provost. Embarrassingly, Grokopedia is way better, despite not being RS. I see no pass of WP:NPROF, but there are enough references in the Grokopedia article which are "real", not hallucinations, that he might pass WP:GNG. I am not going to vote yet, and might never.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 23:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I've looked at the 21 citations in the Grokipedia article and unsurprisingly they all fail to contribute to GNG.
1 2 9 11 17 18 are passing mentions in announcements or news reports

.
3 4 5 6 8 12 13 15 16 19 report exclusively what Bashorun says with no secondary coverage of him

.
7 I can't access but looks to be a Q&A interview with the college's registrar, which would provide zero independent secondary coverage of Bashorun. It may be the same piece as 20 or 21, which indeed are Q&As with the registrar that do not contribute anything toward GNG

.
10 14 are blogs from AOCOED

.
He does not meet NPROF either. JoelleJay (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and User:JoelleJay's search for RS. Masterhatch (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Dana King (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Sourcing is coordinated paid-style PR placements across Nigerian outlets Kqol • talk 13:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Kqol • talk 13:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2026-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - seems to have sufficient sources for GNG in my opinion, and also appears to have won a notable award. Jishara (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per above. --NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep: per above. Good sourcing; won a big award. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment The notable award is the Eko Heritage Award? just another one local Lagos ceremony with no mainstream industry standing. The sourcing is clear promotional - the EP announcement runs near-identically in The Nation and New Telegraph (press-release distribution). No major label, no charts, no independent mainstream coverage. Which specific sources constitute WP:SIGCOV? Kqol • talk 22:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative

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

Sometimes organisations are difficult to determine their notability, however you see a clearly non notable one when there are no secondary or at least reliable sources to back up the contents herein. Bearing this in mind, such resonates with this article as if fails WP:ORGCRIT which, for me, should there be WP:ATD at all, should never be considered. Nevertheless that doesn't mean it cannot be notable someday but it's obviously not for this time. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. I adjusted some of the promotional language and added some citations, and I think the organization is borderline notable - there's at least some secondary independent coverage. I searched Wikipedia Library's default EBSCO database, Google Books, and JSTOR, but haven't exhaustively searched scholarly databases, so there could be more secondary coverage available. Note that another article was recently merged here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated. If the organization doesn't seem sufficiently notable, a good alternative to deletion would be to merge this material to the article about the founder of the organization, Akudo Oguaghamba. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
@Dreamyshade, can we see the citations you added in order to review if it is notable for Wikipedia. Again, why presume that since you didn't find exclusively scholarly articles, then there must have to be secondary ones, and therefore, per your statement, it is a reason to weak keep the article? Who cares for this AFD?

Analysing the above shows there is indeed no standalone chance for this article if not to merge it into the founders. But I wonder why you will first lay a biased arguement before leaning to an WP:ATD? SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Everyone can look at the article history to see the citations I added.

Since you've made ten comments on this AfD, in addition to your nomination statement, I encourage reviewing Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This organisation has a few secondary source independent of the source that covered it, such as: Equitas.org (2). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (3): they covered it with other organisations. Rustin Times(10). Obinna Tony (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Obinna Tony (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
I wonder what more you will say since you considered Equitas.org and Rustin Times as WP:RS. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
If a website is not on Wikipedia's backlist for sources, what makes it unreliable? Personal vibes & feelings? Provided they are actually reporting an objective fact? Not a contested information? (Rustin Times is an LGBTIQ Nigerian outlet. If traditional Nigerian media, are not reporting on LGBTIQ people, organizations, people, identities etc, who does it). Nigeria is a homophobic country and you are not an arbiter of what qualifies as a reliable source. Obinna Tony (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
@Obinna Tony, you've got to read WP:NGRS and for sources, you need to alert the reliable source noticeboard. WP:RSN. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rustin_Times_-_LGBTQ+_Nigerian_website Obinna Tony (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
@Obinna Tony, incase you know already or should have know, the fate of Rustin Times as a reliable source has not been determined. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and LGBTQ+ studies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Lean keep or possibly merge with Akudo Oguaghamba per Dreamyshade's statement. The article has decent sourcing although it could be improved, and this nomination has already inspired some improvements. The fairly recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated decision to merge content into this article should be considered and given some weight here, as well. That discussion had low participation and was not explicitly evaluating the notability of this article, but editors there clearly did not find fault with this article and saw it as an appropriate place to cover content that should be covered somewhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Because the editors of that deletion discussion might have been in the quandary of saving an article, and so, they found this. Moreso when the so-called ATD now becomes non notable (of course as this one), we have an option of deletion. When you argue merg again to the parent article i.e. the foundere, I see a good point there but what actually made Akudo Oguaghamba notable is this organisation, and her article should have covered muc of this one.. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
This orgnization made its founder notable, but the organization itself is not notable? Interesting. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae, yes, an organisation can actually be the influence of its founder and still may meet not WP:STANDALONE. It may have been you're lean on AFD. Maybe. Because so many articles have actually been merged to its founder. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I assume you mean WP:PAGEDECIDE, since we are not discussing any standalone lists here. (Hey look, I do know a thing or two about AFD!) You didn't make a PAGEDECIDE argument, you just said this organization is not notable but its founder is notable and was made so because of her work with this organization. I was trying to follow your logic but if you were actually intending make a PAGEDECIDE argument, that would make sense, and is consistent with my !vote. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae, you said for this AFD, ...That discussion had low participation and was not explicitly evaluating the notability of this article, but editors there clearly did not find fault with this article and saw it as an appropriate place to cover content that should be covered somewhere on en-wiki. Really? Let me tell you: they didn't find fault with this article because 1. They are not interested here 2. They probably didn't care to check here but presupposes that there must be an ATD to whatsoever non AfD-ed article, in this sense, this one 3. Or that they are blind (but this is out of bound b/c I consider all editor intelligible). SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to convey. I said the prior AFD should be considered and given some weight, not that it should determine the outcome here. I then acknowledged a couple reasons why it may not be persuasive or applicable here. I'm so glad you ultimately understood what I was saying, despite seeming to think I did not understand the implications of my own statements. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Lean keep. Would support merge as suggested by Dreamyshade and seconded by Myceteae. Also, per WP:BEFORE, nominating a very new article for deletion instead of allowing time for growth seems premature; a clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion first would have been better. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 01:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
@Pikkupapupata since clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion are not possible because a BEFORE shows nothing notable about this organisation, what claims then are you holding to argue against the nominator, or importantly, for the keep of this article? Sources? That is what is an AFD discussion and not causality case. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE is clear about what to consider and steps to take before nominating an article for deletion. I don't see evidence that such steps and considerations were taken before this nomination, and I fail to understand how those steps were 'impossible'.

And my initial reply to this discussion was clear enough. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
That is nevertheless a reason to argue for keep. Unless you know not the value of AFD, show sources therefore to prove that no BEFORE (of sources), irrespective of time, was done. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A clean-up tag is always possible. While WP:DILIGENCE can find sources to show that notability is achieved, any failure to find such is not proof that such sources do not exist, as not all reliable sources are online, nor are all online sources indexed appropriately by the key online tools. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG. No independent sources seem to cover it significantly in-depth. It can be merged with Akudo Oguaghamba. I'm not sure whether the merge target is notable. But for now, the organization is at least not notable for a standalone article. — Raihanur (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
At this point, I am supporting merging into Akudo Oguaghamba.SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge selectively, as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Akudo Oguaghamba, as previously proposed. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 17:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

X-Dynasty

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not impressed with the sources in this article and I could find nothing more in my own online searches for this "streamer" and content creator. The primary contributors to this article are sockpuppets of User:Fractor4 and Temporary accounts. I just don't think he has reached Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: it certainly would appear that this is the same subject as the first nomination (which ended in deletion), especially since the logs for Draft:X-Dynasty (both attempts started in draftspace before being moved) show both attempts were created by the same sock, though that does not necessarily tip this into G4 territory. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Wcquidditch, I had no idea that this article has been to AFD before, vis Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Dynasty. Thanks for your keen memory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Even if the subject is covered by reliable sources about his ugly image, I don’t think the article should be fully written in just that manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35184-82 (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
If you want to read more about this streamer's "philosophy", I stumbled upon Draft:NUMB (X-Dynasty philosophy, written by the same sockfarm. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep (but confused): Due to the article’s sources seeming non-promotional, I recommend it to be kept but I’m still turned between merging the article to what made the ‘’streamer’’ notable, the NUMB philosoply, rather than a stand alone article for him yet, but yet again the sources talk about him more in relation to the philosophy, but at this point, I’m just confused, I don’t know if I really made myself clear enough?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenJoan the cat (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, HelenJoan the cat. You only created your account a few hours ago. How did you find your way to this deletion discussion? You have also already tried to nominate another article for an AFD. Did you have other accounts you used before this one because most editors who have only been active for a few hours don't know about the AFD process. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Liz, true to it, I never had any idea about AFDs forum or section on Wikipedia. I was browsing through some science related articles earlier and I happened to stumble across some articles one of which let me to the AFDs, though I edit Wikipedia mildly mostly with temporary accounts and concerning the article I nominated for deletion, it was a blatant promotional attempt which I think the author is even related to the article. HelenJoan the cat (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As regarding my earlier vote( note that this is my own opinion and it’s backed by Wikipedia’s standard: After having perused WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, I think it’s safe to say this streamer is notable. Merging him to his NUMB philosophy doesn’t really sit well because the philosophy was not the purpose of the topic in the sources, ‘’HE’’ was the purpose and in relation to how he became notable by the philosophy, another article from https://thesun.ng/x-dynasty-a-life-of-violence-to-others-depression-and-a-journey-to-becoming-a-role-model/ make it seemingly obvious that there was in-depth coverage about him ( cus how would we know he was violent or maybe a popular law offender in his vicinity) also here is an interview looking source about him https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/10/11/from-darkness-to-digital-light-x-dynasty-turns-pain-into-purpose-through-streaming/ this showed he most definitely have been interviewed after he gained traction from that philosophy and here is another one that aligned with the history of this guy https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/12/x-dynasty-turns-personal-struggles-into-digital-movement-built-around-numb/ different reporters, same story and the paparazzi news source here https://themetro.net.ng/nigerian-youtuber-x-dynasty-gains-momentum-with-viral-streams-and-youth-centric-content/, they all seem similar. This research was unknowingly supported by @Dxneo, who put me through cus I didn’t even know much about reliable sources in Nigeria except some few like BBC news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenJoan the cat (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of views from our more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep

More information Number, Reference ...

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Meets GNG
1	https://thesun.ng/x-dynasty-a-life-of-violence-to-others-depression-and-a-journey-to-becoming-a-role-model/	In-depth coverage about his life	Yes .	Yes	Yes	Excellent	Yes
2	https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/12/x-dynasty-turns-personal-struggles-into-digital-movement-built-around-numb/amp/	Written according to his influence	Yes.	Yes	Yes	Very Good (as from Nigerian list of sources)	Yes
3	https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/10/11/from-darkness-to-digital-light-x-dynasty-turns-pain-into-purpose-through-streaming/	An interview style plus slight coverage	Slightly Yes.	Yes	Yes	Excellent	Yes
4	https://themetro.net.ng/nigerian-youtuber-x-dynasty-gains-momentum-with-viral-streams-and-youth-centric-content/	General coverage (summary) of his biography	Yes	Yes	Boderline Yes	Good	Yes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-37826-79 (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Co-Creation Hub

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

All coverage (both cited and found via WP:BEFORE) is run of the mill and fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, or is WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Having Zuckerberg visit is nice but is not a notability guideline. 🄻 🄰 13:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 13:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep, or at minimum no consensus. Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest — I work with Co-Creation Hub. I recognise that editors may weigh my recommendation accordingly. I am mainly adding sources for uninvolved editors to assess against WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH

I agree the current article is weak and leans on thin, promotional, and primary-sourced material, much of which would not survive a WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA check. That is a cleanup problem, not a notability one. Per WP:NEXIST, the question is whether qualifying sources exist and there appears to be significant, independent, secondary coverage of the organisation itself, including from non-Nigerian outlets and peer-reviewed scholarship that NEWSORGNIGERIA does not reach:

CNN (2013), "Co-Creation Hub: Tech space working on 'Nigeria's next big idea'" — a standalone international feature with original on-the-ground reporting on the hub's model, community and startup portfolio. link
Newsweek (2016), "Silicon Lagoon: Africa's Tech Revolution Heads West" — major international magazine; substantive treatment of CcHUB's model, role in the Yaba ecosystem and expansion plans. Independent, not interview-dependent. link
Disrupt Africa (2019), "'Africa's new mega incubator' – the inside story of CcHub's acquisition of iHub" — original investigative reporting with named interviews (including a former Kenyan ICT permanent secretary), analysing CcHUB's for-profit sustainability model against iHub's. link
TechCrunch (2019), "Nigeria's CcHub acquires Kenya's iHub to create mega Africa incubator" — independent analysis of the acquisition and CcHUB's continental position, by a named byline. link
Kolade et al., "The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa," Technological Forecasting and Social Change (Elsevier, 2021) — peer-reviewed scholarship using CcHUB as a primary case study, including critical analysis of its scalability and limits. Open-access manuscript: link

These go beyond routine announcements and the Zuckerberg-visit material; they address the organisation's development, model and significance directly. I would support rewriting the article around independent sources like these, stripping promotional content, and removing claims supported only by primary or affiliated sources. If editors still consider the present article unsuitable, draftification or a substantial rewrite is the proportionate outcome here, not deletion. Moscomoet (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for sources used for establishing notability include CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which I describe below in my !vote. An analysis of sources shows the following:

CNN (2013) source relies entirely on information/interview provided by the company/execs/developers, there is no original research/opinion/etc and no in-depth information which does not originate from the company - fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Newsweek (2016) article is a general overview of the tech scene in West Africa and devotes 10 sentences related to this topic company, starts by describing what it is like to work in the building, then a couple of broad information points such as partnering with Microsoft and a visit by Zeckerberg, then the location of the building. None of that qualifies as in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
Disrupt Africa (2019) could perhaps be classified as investigative reporting with named interviews - but that's the problem. The article merely regurgitates what is said in the interview without providing ORGIND "independent content", fails ORGIND.
TechCrunch (2019) source repeats part of an announcement, and even taking into account [[WP:TECHCRUNCH], I believe there is sufficient in-depth independent content here.
Kolade et al. publication provides a summary of the topic company and their activities, but the bibliography reveals that all of the information was retrieved from Co-Creation Hub website. Reading the text, I don't see any independent content by way of independent fact checking/analysis or opinion, therefore fails ORGIND.

Since there is only one source which - in my opinion - meets the criteria, I think Draftifying will give an opportunity to locate another source, thereby meeting the minimum criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: input from some humans would be appreciated here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep ~~Draftify~~additional source located This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. One source arguably meets the criteria, draftifying provides an opportunity to locate more. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment I've revisited this again to attempt to find more sources. I've come across this book: Global Entrepreneurship: Past, Present & Future which in turn relies on this article in QZ. This is another good reference. On the basis of locating on additional reference, I've changed my !vote above to Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has existed for ten years. Draftification would effectively be backdoor deletion. Is it a NCORP pass or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Then the simple thing to do is delete. It's had an extra ten years to gather enough notability, and it hasn't. Someone might recreate it at a later date should notable subject matter be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenshiSun (talk • contribs)
Note I've located an additional source which in my view meets the criteria - the topic therefore has two sources which contain in-depth independent content and meets the minimum standard required. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria

Nigeria

Nigeria Airways Flight 357

Miichkel

Loveworld Records

King Kaly

Sadiq Abubakar III International Airport

Bashorun Olalekan

Dana King (singer)

Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative

X-Dynasty

Co-Creation Hub

Nigeria proposed deletions

Nigeria miscellany for deletion

Related Articles