Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bank
__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kuda Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. These sources not provide any analytical or investigative depth which is required for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There are plenty of routine press announcements paraphrased from press releases about various funding rounds etc but WP requires in-depth, independent reportage. Routine coverage of financial transactions and company press releases are not sufficient when it comes to establishing notability for any organisation. These sources primarily consist of investment announcements, funding reports, or sources that do not meet Wikipedia’s reliability criteria. I've made this table to illustrate my point.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes Profile on Bloomberg's website that any company can make. | ~ The page only provides a company profile with no substantial editorial coverage. | ✘ No | |
| Yes | Yes Reuters is a reputable global news agency. | ~ No. This coverage is limited to a funding announcement, which is considered routine reporting. | ~ Maybe | |
| Yes | Yes The Financial Times is a respected business news outlet. | ~ Mentions do not count towards GNG The article briefly mentions Kuda Bank in the context of African fintech but does not provide substantial or dedicated coverage. | ~ Maybe | |
| No | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg TechCabal does not have a well-established reputation for reliability on Wikipedia. | Yes The source focuses on Kuda’s funding but lacks the editorial depth required for Wikipedia notability. | ✘ No | |
| No | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg per WP:RSP TechCrunch is not a reliable source for establishing notability. | Yes Reports on allegations involving Kuda’s CEO but does not provide substantial independent coverage of the company itself. | ✘ No | |
| No | File:Blue question mark (italic).svg Launch Africa is not recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. | No The article is focused solely on funding rounds rather than an independent, analytical assessment of the company. | ✘ 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}}. | ||||
.svg){kind=link}
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll fix the source assessment table but essentially I have nominated this page for deletion because there simply aren't enough high-quality, reliable secondary sources to make a tertiary source. Currently, the article is pieced together from mentions and routine press announcements, some of which might have been republished by Reuters but the source's limited scope and depth means that the article is essentially synthesised from primary sources and if we do that for every business, especially those with links to Nigeria's nascent press, most of which are post-Internet, poorly editorially moderated or not moderated at all then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopaedia and become a soap box that looks like an encyclopaedia. If there are any in-depth sources (not routine announcements or mentions) in reliable publications like the FT, NYT, Times, Guardian etc then not only will I withdraw this deletion nomination, I will eat my socks live on the Internet.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)