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. slakr^\ talk / 19:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article meets WP:GNG and two major reliable sources from Vanguard and PRlog

It has reliable source: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/08/achieve-fast-growing-online-platform-view-nigeria-endorses-erigga/ http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/02/vanguard-spark-rookie-for-november-gets-0-2m-chisco-grant/ http://www.prlog.org/12482925-fast-growing-online-news-platform-view-nigeria-set-to-partner-with-foreign-investor.html

You can as well as make a google search https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22View+Nigeria%22&num=50

View Nigeria is a major trusted fast growing news site newspaper in Nigeria right now.

The article is cool to go.. Only more edits needed. — Preceding signed comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep View Nigeria is Nigeria's fastest growing online publication that has won the trust of many Nigerians. Their news are factual, verifiable and accurate. — Jerocarson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:43, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meet WP:GNG and it shouldn't be delete. I have seen lots of articles that fails i.e has only (just) one source from Vanguard Newspaper Nigeria significant coverages but was listed on Wikipedia without be deleted. I see 5 sources on this article from different places. This article is cool to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodye (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Igodye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This is another case of "too soon." The company got funding in November of last year and is ramping up. Ramping up is not the same as enduring and having an impact. The resources (some of which are duplicates) basically say that the owner won a single contest for startups and intends to partner with another firm and hire in the future. All of this is business as usual, even though it is undoubtedly very exciting for those involved. The article that says that it's the "fast growing" provides no backing for that statement. An article on this company may very well be appropriate in the future, after the company is more established. LaMona (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. Although I haven't been able to discern the extent of the relationship between Vanguard and the subject, they clearly had something to do with the grant the subject received. Therefore, it is my opinion that Vanguard is a primary source and may have a conflict of interest making it possible that the subject does not yet pass WP:GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:TOOSOON ??? Well I don't think this article is related to that. Although i have seen an article of WP:TOOSOON that was been listed on wikipedia without a WP:DB here varpal that article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Struck vote by user who already voted --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - arguments for keep are not based on guidelines. Searches bring up nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above; the sources which have been provided aren't sufficient to meet notability. Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.