Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirate System in Nigeria

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 keep‎. Was able to find a couple of sources on Google Scholar and on Archive.org. This topic does not have a bunch of material but material does exist. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate System in Nigeria

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is brief, unsourced and lacks any significant online coverage. I have requested some development from the author but if not forthcoming shortly I would recommend deletion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already nominated the article for deletion with reasons explaining why it should be deleted. That’s a de facto recommendation for deletion. What did you mean by “shortly I would recommend for deletion”? Shoerack (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are loads of sources that could be used to improve the article. The fact that the sources are not present in the article is not a valid reason for deletion. Shoerack (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's brevity shouldn't be a reason for deletion. While I agree that the sourcing is currently poor, if there are "loads of sources" available, as Shoerack mentioned, they should be added to the article instead of simply noting their existence. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Shoerack has no obligation to do that. Shoerack (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look before proposing and found nothing suitable. Some more research may throw something up but I have done what I feel is reasonable. I also asked the author to provide something. As I have said - if nothing is forthcoming shortly I'd recommend deletion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already nominated the article for deletion, which is essentially a recommendation for deletion. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 15:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously the nom did not check for additional sources before nominating this article for deletion. It would useful if we keep in mind that deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lazy nomination. This is a topic that is significantly covered in several reliable sources making it a WP:GNG pass on that basis. It is also obvious there was no cursory search before nomination. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following my comment above, I did do a search, and found several sources to satisfy that this topic does indeed pass WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 15:14, 3 February 2025 (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.