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 Speedy keep‎. Procedural close. No prejudice to renomination. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 assessment table prepared by User:GDX420

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1747346D%3ANL		Profile on Bloomberg's website that any company can make.	~ The page only provides a company profile with no substantial editorial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/nigerias-kuda-bank-secures-xx-million-in-latest-funding-round-2024-10-20/		Reuters is a reputable global news agency.	~ No. This coverage is limited to a funding announcement, which is considered routine reporting.	~ Partial
https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxx		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.	~ Partial
https://techcabal.com/2025/02/20/kuda-equity-raise/		TechCabal does not have a well-established reputation for reliability on Wikipedia.	The source focuses on Kuda’s funding but lacks the editorial depth required for Wikipedia notability.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/19/kuda-and-ceo-face-allegations-of-sex-discrimination-and-unfair-dismissal-from-former-executive-per-filing/		per WP:RSP TechCrunch is not a reliable source for establishing notability.	Reports on allegations involving Kuda’s CEO but does not provide substantial independent coverage of the company itself.	✘ No
https://www.launchafrica.vc/news/kuda-the-african-challenger-bank-raises-55m-at-a-500m-valuation		Launch Africa is not recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia.	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}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. GDX420 I'm a bit confused by the source assessment table you've provided. It doesn't include the majority of the sources in the article, and includes an incomplete link https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxx and a broken link https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/nigerias-kuda-bank-secures-xx-million-in-latest-funding-round-2024-10-20/ (seems unlikely that a real Reuters url would contain "xx million"). There aren't any FT or Reuters sources in the article, and I can't find any sign that a Reuters article matching your url and description actually exists. There seem to be similar issues with other source assessment tables you've created — for instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeoye Aribasoye your source assessment table contains sources like "ExampleNews1.com" and "ExampleNews2.com". Would you be able to explain how you created this source assessment table, and where those Reuters and FT sources came from? MCE89 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NCORP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:10, 22 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.