Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Olufemi-Kayode

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 no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are sufficient for inclusion. This does not change if one discounts the few non-policy-based opinions about women, advocacy, etc. Sandstein 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olufemi-Kayode

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

doesn't meet GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through several hundred google hits, and didn't find enough to show this isn't a case of WP:Too soon. It is possible I missed some sources in other languages, etc. Yvarta (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough RS to establish notability. A case of WP:TOOSOON —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:TOOSOON Doesn't apply here. She has been extensively discussed in reliable sources like these Nigerian newspapers [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided DO NOT extensively discuss the subject. Just mentions and a short piece about her work isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC reads "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:BASIC WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject should be kept per WP:GNG. The subject matter has received significant coverage in verifiable and reliable sources mentioned as references to the article Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i wish to add further that this article should be kept as a way of supporting the advocacy for the increase of women related articles on Wikipedia. More so, this article strongly passed the general criteria for notability WP:GNG see my points below:

The article enjoyed significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources such asI share Hope, The Nation and The Point and mention |here
She is also a fellow of a notable Association: Ashoka Fello

Submitted Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many hits to be found, because she is among other things a professional activist, who takes good care that he work gets published and articles about her get written. We should have a very high index of suspicion in evaluating careers like this " a Nigerian criminal justice psychologist, international speaker, child protection consultant, woman and child right activist, child abuse survivor, advocate for victims of sexual violence" especially when multiple professions are claimed, all coming down to the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? The claim that we should be suspicious of multiple career hats is not a good argument. I can show you plenty of articles about notable people that list multiple jobs in the lede, because that happens. People sometimes have more than one career or interest, especially if they're activists on their off time. In addition, there is also nothing wrong with being a professional activist or about ensuring that you are seen by the press. The press saw her, among many people, and chose to write/quote her. I'm sure she didn't force them to write about her. None of your arguments refute the fact that she is in multiple reliable sources. You are only attempting to discredit the sources themselves. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article makes a claim of notability, namely that she is a fellow in a society recognized on the English Wikipedia as notable. Furthermore, the references, do establish significant coverage. These perquisites being fulfilled means this article passes WP:GNG. Comparatively, a fellow in the Royal Society would be widely considered notable on Wikipedia and it would be bias to put undue weight on recognizing members of one society with established notability over another with likewise established notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only claim I can see like that is of being an "Ashoka Fellow". The page describing this program [14] is so buzzword-laden that it's hard to know what to make of it, but it is certainly not the type of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" that WP:PROF#C3 is talking about. It seems to be more of a program for giving grant funding to specific project proposals (something that is certainly not enough by itself for notability) and then giving them a fancy name. There is no violation of UNDUE in recognizing that the Royal Society is a highly selective and prestigious society and this one appears to be a dressed-up foundation and not a society at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Not sure about WP:GNG. I can't see that she is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I am currently working on improving the article as we speak to try and bring it up to some standard. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a dozen or so news stories quoting her, but none with the in-depth coverage about her required of WP:GNG. The Ashoka Fellowship profile could plausibly be taken as one such source, but we need multiple of them. And she definitely does not pass WP:PROF; it's not the right kind of fellowship for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: This one is a difficult one for me. I have rescinded my speedy keep in favour of a weak keep after trying to edit the article but not finding enough sources to be able to write a great deal. The trouble is that her profile page on that society she is apart states that she worked in various news and radio organizations. Now the challenge here is that due to the country she is in and their limitations on connectivity and such one is presented the issue of if this was a developed country with greater technical advancement that information would have made its way onto the internet and thus made a better case for significant coverage. I am truly stuck on this one because I am honestly convinced there is enough to cover WP:GNG with leniency placed on the requirement for so much coverage based on my aforementioned logic. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a fellow of a notable society and there are plenty of sources available in good pubs. Meets the GNG.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What society? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The coverage is really pretty good for an African woman. We can't expect the same level of sourcing as we have for Americans and Britons. We should be trying to give more attention to African women in line with Wikimedia's priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that there is enough for ANYBIO, as per Mahveotm. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These [15], [16] both establish that she is an ASHOKA Fellow and that the fellowship is not an academic award, but rather a social entrepreneurship program. This [17] confirms her doctorate was honorary. Doesn't mean she isn't notable, simply means that PROF is not applicable. Numerous RS over time confirm she meets GNG. We don't determine her notability, the plethora of sources do. Nor do we limit her to having to fit into a single box or career, like most people, she has multiple facets. [18], [19], [20], [21] [22], [23], [24], [25]. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to me to meet ANYBIO if not GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per observations already made above by DGG, David, et al. The usual social justice warriors are here with their raft of keeps based on websites, pamphlets, and other ephemeral claims ("this article should be kept as a way of supporting the advocacy for the increase of women related articles on Wikipedia"). There are a few mentions in solid secondary sources, but they're trivial. I presume the flashmob of keeps will prevail, tallying this as one more article towards WP becoming nothing more than a biographical directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2017 (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.