Deletion of Gokada

Comment: I don't think that  applies very well here. A couple of these sources are junk, sure, but is coverage "routine" just because a newspaper ''routinely'' covers news? A 5.3 million Series A is fairly respectable (this is not just a couple guys in a garage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Confusion Rocks Gokada, Lagos’s Modern Okada" from the Nigerian Tribune is a really decent secondary source that is well written, indepth and qualifies as . However a single source in not sufficing to establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The sources supporting the article are the usual ing of poor sources that are easy for companies to obtain. The great majority of these are regurgitated press releases or the like and the remainder are  coverage of normal transactions.  What coverage is significant is not independent or reliable and vice-versa
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:MILL)

Comment: I agree with the analysis posted above by scope_creep. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and clearly {{u|Lynndonald}} above has misinterpreted what is meant by a source being "independent of the subject" which doesn't just mean that the topic organizations is functionally independent from the publisher, but also that the source contains "Independent Content" as per . Topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)