778:
have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject! If the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, why is there so much rigmarole? Also, claiming the articles in these sources listed are paid promos because "the organization has 6 staff members" is unsubstantiated, preposterous and very ridiculous. It doesn't even matter anymore if the article gets deleted as a result of popular consensus or votes, but the points raised so far to establish or disprove notability is such a concern; it totally beggars the mind!
962:"Foist on us?" Who are the "us"? Is this a gangup or some sort of sockpuppetry?? I've been citing Knowledge's policies and guidelines that truly establishes or disproves notability, verifiable links, the subject's significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, but your reasons why this page MUST be deleted are unfounded; no policies, no documents whatsoever! Regards.
699:
doesn't expressly state the staff strength, nothing of such. For example, I'm a departmental head of a team with a staff strength of 31. Let's be candid and fair: will it be logical to put out all the 32 pictures on a limited webpage? It only makes sense to put the head of the team! Lastly, rules are
736:
Before you start casting aspersions about "unproven and unfounded assumptions" from other editors, can you please provide evidence that the company has more than 6 staff? Although it is a bit tangential, because notability of the company and notability of its current CEO are separate issues. Cheers,
777:
arguments. The link you posted--which isn't independent of the individual--is not enough to establish or disprove the notability of an individual, for the same reason having a million pictures of humans in suits, on your OWN webpage, wouldn't suffice! Again, for some quick education: the topic must
675:. The fact there is so much coverage of this type, suggests they are press-releases and nothing else. It is entirely unlikely the papers are listening to one man from such a small company, on the same subject, unless it is paid promotion. The person is entirely non-notable.
501:
how do you prove that such print and web syndications are paid, as CNN, reuters, and other credible newssources, just as these ones, offer such syndication services for non-commercial use? These sources below are credible, and you can take time to check them
909:
The subject operates a run of the mill real estate business and is good at PR. That’s how he gets the same story with the same publicity pic released in multiple ‘reliable’, ‘independent’ publications like The
Guardian and Business Day Nigeria.
765:
One of the sources I found did actually point out that the organization, most likely, works with a team of realtors outside their organization, could be just two, a thousand, or more, considering the article content:
198:
833:
re above: Its a small lettings/real estate agency. They are not division heads, board members nor senior boards members. Job titles for a small agency. More so, did you just state you have a
799:
Most of the sources seem either promo or don't feature the subject. However, there is a little RS, so I will wait until the poorly sourced content dissapears before throwing my two cents in.
255:
159:
192:
572:
1068:
Great, thanks for understanding. To answer your questions: I don't have anything against you personally, and don't recall making any "sockpuppet warning" about you.
441:
The issue is not that the source is
Nigerian. The issue is that the content is paid/press release. I mentioned that it is a Nigerian source to differentiate it from
275:
489:
That newssources are from "Nigeria" shouldn't in any way cause you to question the credibility, reputation, trustworthiness or veracity. There's such a thing as
399:
but rather from a
Nigerian site guardian.ng Since the exact same content appears on a number of other sites, it appears to be paid content/ press release. —
106:
635:
565:"Real estate expert tasks government on ease of doing business" This wasn't a trivial mention as per the above subject, but a significant coverage. Also,
91:
751:
I'll need time to do more research on that. Hopefully, there'll be some reliable and independent sources that has addressed your question.Regards
1054:
Ok, that's fine. But how did COI suddenly turn to "sockpuppeting warning?" Do you have anything against my person or my objective responses?
933:
instead of making pseudo claims? Kindly go through the content in these reliable and independent sources you've openly discredited. Regards.
371:
is generally a reliable source, but multiple that are independent of each other and by different authors is required; one is not enough. --
477:
The references, as indicated by all who took time to meticulously check, have been improved with more reliable sources, so that it passes
132:
127:
136:
641:
is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject. These references, therefore, are suitable to establish
458:
408:
119:
86:
79:
17:
563:
213:
858:
834:
180:
773:
also made mention of staff, albeit with no indication whatsoever of staff strength. I'm also trying so hard to understand
581:
931:
889:
767:
100:
96:
627:
619:
947:
That is a press-release you keep trying to foist on to us. Why do you keep doing that when it is clearly non-rs.
1130:
174:
40:
1091:
1077:
1063:
1049:
1035:
1004:
995:; if you have a genuine concern, please complete an SPI report, otherwise it's just unhelpful mud-slinging.
971:
957:
942:
919:
901:
862:
825:
808:
787:
760:
746:
727:
685:
663:
608:
463:
436:
413:
380:
355:
334:
317:
287:
267:
247:
170:
61:
770:
630:
584:
566:
527:
515:
313:
123:
1126:
36:
710:, can we please keep out unproven and unfounded assumptions except verifiable thoughts. It's in no way
220:
846:
455:
405:
115:
67:
1011:
Same editor that rushed to accuse me of COI when I clearly stated that I have none is talking about
1073:
1045:
1000:
742:
330:
283:
263:
206:
57:
1087:
1059:
1031:
967:
938:
854:
821:
783:
756:
723:
659:
638:
545:
388:
372:
1040:
You didn't actually state that you don't have a COI, all you said was "I only gave an example".
1012:
992:
915:
622:
539:
490:
351:
308:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1125:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
569:
is a reliable source with editorial integrity. The publication is independent of the subject.
186:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1020:
985:
977:
950:
894:
885:
804:
774:
704:
693:
678:
652:
601:
503:
482:
429:
364:
303:
240:
234:
498:
494:
451:
401:
1069:
1041:
996:
738:
715:
711:
326:
279:
259:
53:
1083:
1055:
1027:
1023:
988:
963:
934:
875:
850:
817:
779:
752:
719:
707:
701:
655:
642:
533:
478:
299:
230:
1016:
981:
911:
881:
446:
442:
396:
392:
347:
153:
930:
How about you going through the references, like the one I pointed out earlier:
800:
976:
It is incorrect that reasoning is unfounded, since the arguments presented by
1015:? Where's the good faith?? Cut me some slack! The premise of your arguments
578:
is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject.
445:
as I perceived that the above two editors mistook the citation to be from
697:
673:
629:
Reputable media source, independent of the subject, another one from the
575:
521:
891:
is another press-release. All the references are press-releases.
672:
There is exactly 6 people working in this small private company:
637:
This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also,
574:
This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also,
1121:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1026:
are clearly non-supportive of your reasonings thus far. Regards
497:
which in no way, I believe, usurps
Knowledge rules. Again,
422:
I think the
Nigerian Guardian, which has been described as
621:
Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from
583:
Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from
555:
Kindly let's examine some of the references judiciously:
991:, etc. Also, accusation of sockpuppetry does not follow
880:
can you put new comments at the bottom of the page per
149:
145:
141:
205:
256:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1133:). No further edits should be made to this page.
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
254:Note: This discussion has been included in the
426:is a pretty solid newspaper as newspapers go.
219:
8:
276:list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
844:
273:
253:
888:, which is standard practice. Reference:
598:Removed malware url/browser hijacker.
7:
843:I only gave an example. Regards.
424:Nigeria's most respected newspaper
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
506:did address this. Many thanks.
395:the two citations are not from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
700:rules. If the article passes
342:per above, although arguably
1092:22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
1078:21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
1064:11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
1050:10:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
1036:10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
1005:06:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
972:02:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
958:18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
943:18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
920:06:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
902:06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
863:18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
826:17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
809:16:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
788:03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
761:22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
747:21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
728:17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
686:15:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
664:13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
609:14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
464:14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
437:08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
414:15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
381:03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
356:21:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
346:might be a reliable source.
335:07:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
318:21:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
288:19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
268:19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
248:19:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
62:00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1150:
714:and adequately satisfies
1123:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
696:This link you put out:
771:The Guardian (Nigeria)
631:The Guardian (Nigeria)
585:Business Day (Nigeria)
567:The Guardian (Nigeria)
528:Business Day (Nigeria)
516:The Guardian (Nigeria)
980:are clearly based on
325:As per Celestina007.
80:Articles for deletion
835:Conflict of Interest
298:— Fails to satisfy
229:Non-notable. Fails
816:"Seems". Regards.
769:This article from
639:Vanguard (Nigeria)
546:Vanguard (Nigeria)
865:
849:comment added by
623:The Sun (Nigeria)
540:The Sun (Nigeria)
491:Print syndication
290:
270:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1141:
955:
953:
899:
897:
879:
683:
681:
606:
604:
434:
432:
378:
375:
245:
243:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1131:deletion review
951:
949:
895:
893:
873:
679:
677:
602:
600:
495:Web syndication
461:
430:
428:
411:
376:
373:
241:
239:
166:
130:
116:Patrick Oriyomi
114:
111:
74:
71:
68:Patrick Oriyomi
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1147:
1145:
1136:
1135:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1082:I see. Regards
923:
922:
904:
867:
866:
838:
828:
811:
793:
792:
791:
790:
763:
749:
731:
730:
688:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
633:
625:
612:
611:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
579:
570:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
542:
536:
530:
524:
518:
487:
486:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
459:
417:
416:
409:
383:
358:
337:
320:
292:
291:
271:
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1146:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
956:
954:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
921:
917:
913:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
890:
887:
883:
877:
872:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
842:
839:
836:
832:
829:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
794:
789:
785:
781:
776:
772:
768:
764:
762:
758:
754:
750:
748:
744:
740:
735:
734:
733:
732:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
703:
698:
695:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
674:
671:
668:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
654:
644:
640:
636:
634:
632:
628:
626:
624:
620:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
607:
605:
597:
594:
593:
586:
582:
580:
577:
573:
571:
568:
564:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
547:
543:
541:
537:
535:
534:New Telegraph
531:
529:
525:
523:
519:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
505:
500:
496:
492:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
465:
462:
456:
454:
453:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
435:
433:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
412:
406:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
387:
384:
382:
379:
370:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
315:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
244:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1122:
1120:
948:
906:
892:
870:
845:— Preceding
840:
830:
813:
796:
690:
676:
669:
651:
599:
595:
554:
488:
474:
450:
447:The Guardian
443:The Guardian
427:
423:
400:
397:The Guardian
385:
369:The Guardian
368:
360:
344:The Guardian
343:
339:
322:
309:Celestina007
307:
295:
238:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
978:scope_creep
952:scope_creep
896:scope_creep
775:scope_creep
694:scope_creep
680:scope_creep
603:scope_creep
504:scope_creep
431:scope_creep
340:Weak delete
242:scope_creep
193:free images
1084:DEOL ] (])
1056:DEOL ] (])
1028:DEOL ] (])
1013:WP:RESPECT
993:WP:RESPECT
964:DEOL ] (])
935:DEOL ] (])
818:DEOL ] (])
780:DEOL ] (])
753:DEOL ] (])
720:DEOL ] (])
718:. Regards.
656:DEOL ] (])
499:Ad Meliora
452:Ad Meliora
402:Ad Meliora
389:SandDoctor
377:SandDoctor
237:. Puffy.
1127:talk page
1070:1292simon
1042:1292simon
1021:WP:ANYBIO
997:1292simon
986:WP:ANYBIO
886:WP:THREAD
739:1292simon
705:WP:SIGCOV
653:WP:SIGCOV
483:WP:SIGCOV
365:WP:SIGCOV
363:as fails
327:1292simon
304:WP:ANYBIO
280:Shellwood
260:Shellwood
235:WP:SIGCOV
54:Barkeep49
37:talk page
1129:or in a
876:Deolkint
859:contribs
851:Deolkint
847:unsigned
576:This Day
522:This Day
460:Contribs
410:Contribs
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
912:Mccapra
871:Comment
841:Comment
831:Comment
814:Comment
797:Comment
716:WP:WHYN
712:WP:SPIP
691:Comment
670:Comment
596:Comment
393:Bearian
348:Bearian
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1024:WP:GNG
989:WP:GNG
907:Delete
801:GDX420
708:WP:BIO
702:WP:GNG
643:WP:GNG
479:WP:BIO
386:Delete
361:Delete
323:Delete
300:WP:GNG
296:Delete
231:WP:BIO
171:Google
137:delete
50:delete
1017:WP:IS
982:WP:IS
882:WP:TP
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1088:talk
1074:talk
1060:talk
1046:talk
1032:talk
1001:talk
968:talk
939:talk
916:talk
855:talk
822:talk
805:talk
784:talk
757:talk
743:talk
724:talk
660:talk
502:out.
481:and
475:Keep
391:and
352:talk
331:talk
314:talk
284:talk
264:talk
233:and
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
544:6.
538:5.
532:4.
526:3.
520:2.
514:1.
493:or
374:The
302:or
221:TWL
158:– (
1090:)
1076:)
1062:)
1048:)
1034:)
1019:,
1003:)
984:,
970:)
941:)
918:)
884:,
861:)
857:•
824:)
807:)
786:)
759:)
745:)
726:)
662:)
449:—
367:.
354:)
333:)
316:)
306:.
286:)
278:.
266:)
258:.
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
1086:(
1072:(
1058:(
1044:(
1030:(
999:(
966:(
937:(
914:(
878::
874:@
853:(
837:?
820:(
803:(
782:(
755:(
741:(
722:(
658:(
485:.
457:∕
407:∕
350:(
329:(
312:(
282:(
262:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.