Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Yellow Pages

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 Lots of possible sockpuppets and possible trolling. The argument for deletion is really much stronger and the arguments for closure fail to look at the links and see the mentions which don't exist. The product is mentioned on the main corp's page, which is where it belongs for now. Yanksox 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigerian Yellow Pages

'+"Nigerian Yellow Pages"' googles only about 6000 hits, of which I can't find a sensible reference near the top, and I've not found that the company meets WP:CORP (not the primary subject of non-trivial publication, not listed on an important ranking index, value not used in a stock market index). The only reliable references provided appear to me closely affiliated with the company, and certainly not independent, nor separately noteworthy. Many of its incarnations (including its current state at time of nomination) read like an SEO inbound links generator. I bring it here simply to find out whether others agree that it could be deleted. RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: the debate has been going a while now, and the four people who have voted keep (only one of whom has a history of Wikipedia experience), while obviously feeling strongly about it, have not provided one single piece of evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages qualifies as a notable company per WP:CORP. In fact, on further investigation, I think this article nearly qualifies under CSD G11. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It may be unnotable to Americans, but keep in mind that the official language of Nigeria is English. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're making an unwarranted assumption, that has no basis in what the nominator actually wrote, which is that xe was unable to find any sources. Ironically, the fact that the official language is English rather undermines any "You didn't find any sources because you weren't looking in the right language." argument. You can help the discussion by pointing to articles that others have written about this business directory. Uncle G 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, nominator is not American :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It occurs to me to ask, does WP:CORP then not apply to non-American companies? --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • it worths consideration as a source reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 21:02
    • Just a thought, I could be wrong though. Will African ever develop? When a reference was quoted an no one care to investigate that...only to just assume(MAY BE) and based action on such. Africa and Western world are different, and if there is such references with pages and newspaper's names, I feel strong that its worth keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 21:02
    • Comment I agree with you (above). Only Africa and Africans suffer sometimes. The article on Europages was and have never been nominated for deletion...that is one of the irony. even when references are cited, no investigation made to establish facts. I have always like Wikipedia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 22:12
      Thank you for agreeing with yourself, 196.3.61.3. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
      That is very pitiful of a remark from RoberG. How can you assume that the same person posted the two comment just becos they have same IP adrress. Lack of knowledge may have allowed you to utter such. Remember African's depend on ISP who most times has just one single IP address as shared by all who subscribed to their internet facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 11:52
      I really am sorry if it offended you. You could always create yourself a separate account. If you say so, of course I accept that the two comments were not by the same person, and withdraw the remark. Others will no doubt look at the history of contributions from your IP address and draw their own conclusions. I notice that you still provide no argument for why Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable per WP:CORP (because it isn't). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article can be modified, remember it is a good source of information for foreigners seeking Nigerian business information - Dave Wellington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 15:38:54
  • Good to Keep Only need some fine-tunning, it could be a good source of information for us outside Nigeria--User:TylerOH 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Both of you appear to be conflating the business directory itself with the Wikipedia article about the business directory. This discussion is about whether Wikipedia should have an article. It is nothing to do with whether actual business directory itself should exist. Uncle G 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    TylerOH's first contribution on Wikipedia: you are very welcome indeed, I hope you stay. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment, we don't need to worry that foreigners seeking Nigerian business information will go uninformed: the company's website is equally accessible outside Nigeria. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My findings I just did some findings, and observed the company link on one of the mobile networks wapsite in Nigeria at http://wap.ng.celtel.com/infoservices/index.aspx - Dave Wellington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:01:53
    • A bare hyperlink on a web page, with no accompanying text whatsoever, doesn't do anything towards satisfying the WP:CORP criteria. Please find non-trivial published works that other people, independent of the business directory and its operators, have written about it. (Take a look at BETDAQ#References, for comparison.) Uncle G 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Celtel.com is a portal for mobile content service providers, not exactly a reliable independent source. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment,Uncle G: On the company website...there are independent source references to nine (9) nigerian noteable national and business newspapers extract about the company, quoting what the newspapers said of this company. Is this not an independent sources? This is available at http://nigerianyellowpages.com/press.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) .
      • No, these are newspaper cuttings, which may be excerpts from press releases, quoted on the company's website, not references in sources that are primarily about the company. Please read WP:CORP. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • 'Comment Robert, I like pursuing what is good. Someone mentioned the references MAY BE cutting or press releases. We fight for what we can establish as facts, it is my suggestion that we should not assume and based action on assumptions. It will be proper to get copy of this materials to establish if they are press releases indeed, otherwise it will be injustice to act this way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs)
          • Please assume good faith. It is not injustice to treat glowing references found on a company's website as "not independent". And will you please read WP:CORP? And will you please sign your comments on this page with four tildes, like this ~~~~ --RobertG ♬ talk 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You'd do far better to point to the original articles directly. Are the Sun and the Guardian mentioned The Sun and The Guardian? Both of those have their archives available on the World Wide Web. Uncle G 16:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment, Please note that the reference newspapers are Nigerian newspapers. They do not keep all their content online ony few headlines article are available as online content. The reference materials as indicated can be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriwedd (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:54:28
          • Ah. The Guardian. Uncle G 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm a Nigerian myself, and I can confirm the references someone made on the chat in the referece newspapers. I do not see why that cannot be considered just becos the material reference are not available as a link on the web. Not all countries are techie like American. A second investigation will do justice to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 20:52
            Yes, please read the nomination, and provide evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable. As I say, the facts about Nigerian Yellow Pages are not in dispute. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's Keep Deletion will mean a harm to many in need of information of such importance provided through this company at this information age, when people outside nigeria truly need business information about Nigeria easily.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriwedd (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 16:16
    • Comment, we don't need to worry that foreigners seeking Nigerian business information will go uninformed: the company's website is equally accessible outside Nigeria. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You are very welcome to Wikipedia, Afriwedd. Your comment is valued here, because I notice that in your few contributions you have taken a special interest in the Xybertek, and the Nigerian Yellow Pages articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment about all contributions to this debate so far. The arguments made for keeping the article have nearly all been based on its being verifiable, which is not in dispute. That Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian business directory with an internet presence is not questioned. The nomination of the article for deletion is based purely on my opinion that the company's meeting WP:CORP cannot be established, and that it is therefore not according to Wikipedia policy that the article be kept. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I'm a Nigerian myself, and I can confirm the references someone made on the chat in the referece newspapers. I do not see why that cannot be considered just becos the material reference are not available as a link on the web. Not all countries are techie like American. A second investigation will do justice to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-11 20:57
      Yes, please read the nomination, and provide evidence for why the Nigerian Yellow Pages is notable. As I say, the facts about Nigerian Yellow Pages are not in dispute. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The debate so far. Nominator (me): delete because I cannot determine it meets WP:CORP. Jusjih: Delete. Kitch: WP:CORP doesn't apply to non-American companies. 134.146.0.27: it's a useful source of info for those seeking Nigerian businsess information, besides there are references: look at the company's own website and this Nigerian mobile-content-providers' commercial portal. TylerOH: it's useful for people outside Nigeria. Afriwedd: will deprive many needing this important information. 196.3.61.3: Keep because it's been mentioned in a newspaper. Nominator's reply to all the comments so far: (sigh) please read the nomination, and stop distracting us from the issue. It is not in dispute that Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian commercial business directory with an internet presence. What is required in this debate is verifiable evidence that the company is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory, an SEO tool, or an internet guide (I quote from What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website [or company] offers, but should describe the site [or company] in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance). The debate so far has convinced me more than ever that my original nomination was correct. In fact, on further investigation, I think it nearly qualifies for {{db-spam}} and CSD G11. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi! I've been with Wikipedia for over a year now and contribute primarily to Nigeria-related articles (also occasional XfD discussions). I normally feel very strongly about keeping Nigeria-related articles that show up here, mostly because we really do suffer from a lack of them. However, I think that this article should be deleted for several reasons, not the least of which is that this site has been axed by its host and no longer exists. Beyond that, the site itself (not the Wikipedia article) has always been very spammy and not particularly useful. If people want to write more articles about Nigeria, that's wonderful, but this isn't a good place to start. We have very few Nollywood-related articles, Nigerian popular music is brutally underrepresented, and our articles on Nigerian politicians are frequently out of date and no longer accurate. But I can't see what this or any article on nigerianyellowpages.com (or even yellowpages.com.ng which isn't a lot better) could possible add to the encyclopedia that would be of value. ergot 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, I cannot see the site being axe. I can sense some Wikipedian being a competitor to NigerianYellowPages.com especially the last commentator mentioning a competiting yellowpages called http://yellowpages.com.ng . This now gives me a clue to what people type here.....you guys all the very best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 8:39
  • I actually expected Ergot to confirm some comment regarding online content of Nigerian newspapers and whether the cites references are truly news event since he has been writing on Nigerian article, he should have provided some insight rather than offering a competiting yellow pages site.....something is hidden here. truly Afriwedd 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Afriwedd, please assume good faith. If people are looking for a hidden agenda, they might equally imagine that some people who have contributed to this discussion have a commercial interest in keeping the Wikipedia article as an additional free high-profile web presence for the company, and for SEO purposes. Of course, I couldn't possibly believe such a thing myself: I am merely pointing out to you where your argument of "something hidden", taken to its logical conclusion, leads. Let's assume that no-one has an axe to grind. My reading of Ergot's argument is that he disinterestedly believes the company is not notable, and that the article adds nothing to Wikipedia. I say to you again, please read the nomination: the problem with the article is not that it is unverifiable, the problem is that it is not verifiably notable per WP:CORP. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. The site does seem to be back up today, although yesterday the URL only returned a "this site has been suspended" notice. I just wanted to mention that by no means was I trying to promote yellowpages.com.ng. I said that nigerianyellowpages.com was a spammy site and that yellowpages.com.ng wasn't a lot better. If anything, I attacked yellowpages.com.ng rather than attempting to promote it. I don't think we need articles on either of them. ergot 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Our attention has been drawn to this debate, and would like to clarifies as follows:
    First, we feel priviledge that someone has written an article about us and several others have been updating same with information about our service and company.
    We appreciate those who were steadfast in defending an article about us, and also appreciate the other side of this story. This actually help to establish fast but we only decided to comment based on what could negatively impact on our company which we would like to correct at this forum.
    RobertG comment that "these are newspaper cuttings". We will please implore you to do your investigation and correct same in this forum after establishing that these are news event of which were published by the newspapers extract and cited by someone in the aforesaid article.
    We also want to mention that we appreciate competition thus would encourage anyone (like the person with yellowpages.com.ng) to freely mention them, and would encourage free and unbiased comments.
    While it is our desire to publish material about us, we would not want a sitation where such remarks and comments impact on us negatively.
    We wish you all to enjoy your contributions to Wikipedia and make it an avenue for all to benefit from. NigerianYellowPages 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Email: ads@NigerianYellowPages.com Web: www.NigerianYellowPages.com
    (Apologies, this may not be well formatted, due to the fact that we are not familair with Wikipedia)
    To be clear, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that the newspaper cuttings quoted are genuine, and I am sorry if I have given any other impression. I reiterate a point that I have made here frequently: there is no doubt that Nigerian Yellow Pages is a Nigerian company offering a business directory of considerable utility, with an internet presence. If the thoughtful and balanced comment above is anything to go by, the company is clearly a good one to do business with. I wish the company every success. I am purely asking the Wikipedia community whether the subject of the article meets the notability criteria, which are clearly laid out at WP:CORP.
    I would be distressed if this discussion reflected badly on your business. That is the very last thing I want. Since you have raised this as a concern, I propose that this discussion be blanked shortly after the debate is over (which will be in about a week's time). I will do so myself if no-one objects. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Great contribution from NigerianYellowPages. I also wish your company the very best. I need to draw attention of all to the comment made by someone from IP address - 196.3.61.3 - i.e. The article on Europages was and have never been nominated for deletion. No one seem to make any comment on this reference. Does that same article meet same criteria, that it has not been nominated for deletion? Just a thought after reading all the trends. TylerOH 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I looked at the article and I agree with you: I nominated it for deletion as you suggested. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I thought the article on Europages was nominated for deletion, and that was removed, and Nigerian Yellow Pages still suggested for deletion. I've raised this before, that we do not have a balanced judgement here.....since I've been using Wikipedia, Europages has never been up for deletion, only when someone raised the issue, then people thought of it for deletion. Again...numbers of people who are here day-in day-out with their comments, never mentioned of Europages as not in line with Wikipedia policy, but bent on making several comments on Nigerian Yellow Pages. I've been condemed for my remark before now.....and my very reason of not becoming a member...becos I do not like unbiased comments. With or without this article, someone already suggested we westerners will not be deprived of information we need, but I can assume we can get it from Europages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs) 15 October 2006 17:16
    Firstly, Europages is going through the AfD process, the same as this one. And, bless you, deletion of the Wikipedia article would not deprive westerners of any information, because there is no information in the article that is not on Nigerian Yellow Pages! Are you confusing "Wikipedia" with "the internet"? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Abeg my pardon RobertG. If Europages is going through same, why do the deletion sign appeared on NigerianYellowPages and not on Europages anymore? We need balanced judgment here. I could be wrong though, but I remember seeing the deletion sign on Europages but not anymore, and I can hear RoberG mentioning that Europages is going through the AfD process, what is the meaning of this comment? TylerOH 09:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    EUROPAGES was a contested {{prod}}, and is now undergoing an AfD discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Abeg brodas please note EUROPAGES has now been deleted (discussion). FWIW. ergot 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable printed directory.--Vsion 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep qualifies under WP:CORP 'Criteria for products and services' #1 : 'The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.' The list of newspaper references at the bottom constitutes 'multiple non-trivial published works...' unless and until someone reads the newspapers in question and can show us that the coverage was in fact trivial. Cynical 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of these newspapers have websites with online archives. I don't have time to go through all the refs right now, but I did pull up the first one, which is given as "ThisDay Newspaper, Page 26. November 3, 2005". Here is ThisDay from November 3, 2005. I didn't read all the articles, but NigerianYellowPages is certainly not mentioned in any of the headlines, nor do any of the articles have headlines that suggest that they might be about this website. I doubt that any coverage therein would be nontrivial, but I would appreciate it if someone with more time than I have could take a look. Additionally, that "AboutUs.org featured site" link is pointing at someone's wiki, which would almost certainly not be considered a reliable source. ergot 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aboutus featuring NigerianYellowPages.com among the many millions of site could have been a good credit and recognition of the work done by this company. At least, NigerianYellowPages.com do not owned or control the decision for its site to be featured. What interest me to comment is what I found on the wiki site at http://www.aboutus.org/NigerianYellowPages.com i.e The place to go if you're looking for a business in Nigeria.
  • Keep.There is considerable evidence that is should be kept. Someone in this trend mentioned being a Nigerian, and that he saw the newspapers articles. I need to ask where Egot comes from if he is knowledgable about Nigeria society itself. I can also confirm that not all article in a day (eidtion) newspaper are made available on the web. The major headlines are posted, and that very newspaper has hundreds of other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.6.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Reply. I really fail to see how this is relevant, but I am from Aba, Abia State. ergot 21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply.It is a pity such words came from you. How on earth would someone see a yellow pages with considerable innovation and progress as irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, how come Celtel that just came into the country recognised the need to put their link on its website so that all Nigerians can have access to business directory at their finger tips? How again would Yell UK put lots of resources achieving same for UK and the world. It is becoming so clear how your argument is. I can see that Ergot is definitely a competitor. If you are a competitor (which I already assumed) I would prefer you come out with what your yellow pages can do to improve the life of Nigerian than to come here and make unjustified comment as irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Were I a competitor, I probably would have created an article on whatever competing entity I am supposed to represent by now. Please read the other comments on this page about assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks, and the like. I think that Wikipedia needs more articles on Nigeria-related subjects, but I don't think that this article is one that can be included under our guidelines. I have said that several times now. Please stop making these bizarre accusations against me. ergot 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article definitely qualifies, in my opinion. With my short time on wikipedia, I've seen lots of articles with only references to books e.tc whose presence are not web-based. e.g Nigeria. If those references are doubted, people would have commented on them, same with Nigerian Yellow Pages - becos many Nigerians themselves would have raise a comment. Only Egot who is familiar with Nigeria articles, but making a reference to another competitor without any need for it - which makes someone thought of him being the competitor itself. Let us not be biased in making judgement. TylerOH 16:21, 19 October 2006 (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.