Paulin Basinga : I don't see articles about this individual, only interviews or use  of him as an expert on xyz health topic in various media.  Odd that all sourcing here is from Nigeria, but none in the home country, possible "pay to publish" as we see typically in Nigerian media.  I have my concerns, bringing ti AfD to discuss.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Rwanda .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Democratic Republic of the Congo , Nigeria ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose!  In the beginning, I read about him and his works.  For clarification, it may seem to be promo but factually it is not.  In facts, connectively, I read that in the home country he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant.  These can be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert.  But I considered it notable because he featured on international articles including those of World Bank and BMGF .  It is referenced that later on, he has featured on other institutions such as Global Citizen and UGHE .  I do not see any problem with sources from Nigeria because based on reliable sources, it shows that his work in leadership role at BMGF were about Africa and the biggest office there was in Nigeria.  However, If we test him in Rwanda, below are some articles about him but there are in Kinyarwanda ; https://mobile.igihe.com/amakuru/u-rwanda/article/dr-paulin-basinga-yahawe-kuyobora-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-ishami-rya https://igihe.com/amakuru/u-rwanda/article/live-rwanda-day-yatangiye-i-washington-dc-amafoto Thanks.  6eeWikiUser ( talk ) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b , a drive-by comment: are you insinuating that "pay-to-publish" determines the nature of Nigeria media.  I can't see much coverage if not two from Nigerian source.  Don't you think it's below the belt?  Back to deletion discussion!  — Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure, we see it all too often here in AfD; Nigerian and Indian media seem to have a history of publishing iffy articles on people with no relation to the country.  When I see an article that's only sourced to Nigerian media when the subject doesn't have a connection to the country (or a partial connection), it's a red flag.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never knew the story about Nigerian and Indian media, and I think we should not easily globalize because from this subject, mathematically, the sources from Nigerian media are less than 30%.  6eeWikiUser ( talk ) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is sufficient coverage, and it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs ares reliable and verifiable , and there is sufficient coverage that meets our notability guidelines , and merits a stand-alone article, which this article does.  Generalising and casting aspersions on a developing country's media is most unhelpful, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and its goal in fighting against Wikipedia:Systemic bias .  We do not know whether subject paid for it or not, and without facts, we should be mindful of casting aspersions on the credibility of others.  It it is most unhelpful, and I hope the nom strike out that comment in their nomination and the response to  Safari Scribe.  I totally agree with  Safari Scribe.  It is unwarranted and below the belt.  Tamsier ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I have no confidence about a consensus here.  Critiquing media from specific countries needn't be a slam against a nationality, just a comment on the prevalence of paid/sponsored journalism is particular countries.  I know we have list of Indian sources that don't meet Wikipedia standards for independence and editorial rigor.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete heavily refbombed with sources which are interviews, or not independent, or passing mentions.  The subject has a very successful career but that is not sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article.  Mccapra ( talk ) 00:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you @ Mccapra .  In above replies I mentioned that while creating the page I read that more time of his career he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant this means those positions could be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert.  I considered his interviews strong because he was advising in notable and reliable magazines and talking about broad topics including deadliest diseases like Ebola , HIV and Polio among others.  However, he has some sources which are not added, if inserting them now can make it any better be kind enough to let me know.  12eeWikiUser ( talk ) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sourcing is consistent with the pay-to-publish promotional content seen in Nigerian media.  Not seeing GNG here.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you @ JoelleJay , all the content seen in Nigerian media are from notable magazines including The Guardian (Nigeria) , Premium Times , and The Nation (Nigeria) .  While reading Wikipedia notability guidelines I understood that it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs are reliable and verifiable.  Why are you not seeing GNG here?  12eeWikiUser ( talk ) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The sourcing is un impressive but, more importantly, it does not establish notability.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings, It will be somehow hard for me to understand that subject is not notable while all source providers I used (18) have Wikipedia pages, please check starting from Evans School of Public Policy and Governance up to Guttmacher Institute .  Otherwise, what is notability?  12eeWikiUser ( talk ) 06:19, 18 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete