Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:06, 6 June 2020

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Seconded concerns about self promotion. This individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and individuals associated with the article's subject are actively reverting good faith edits flagging the article for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeferino (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Geeferino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Article appears to be written by the subject, who is not a public figure. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for self promotion Economist4738 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Economist 4738— Economist4738 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Point of fact, article was not written or requested by the subject, see here. Have not assessed the sourcing or potential sourcing yet but will comment with a vote later. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tone and content issues can, as always, be solved by editing. As I read it (I cannot access WSJ and NYT sources as I don't subscribe) there are more than enough independent, reliable sources which cover the subject to allow for notability. See st. louis fed interview, UMBC profile, ms magazine (which covers her org but also gives details about her), another interview, and this profile. The planet money interview (from NPR) may also count but I didn't listen to it. I see more than enough sourcing to allow for a short bio of a subject. Upsetting to me that this was taken to AfD within 24 hours of creation and I think the nominator should reflect on why they chose not to use BLPprod or simple editing to resolve the issues. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original article creator (technically changed redirect page to standalone page) and can confirm that I am not the subject and have no personal or professional relationship to the subject. I had never had any type of contact with the subject until yesterday when I began creating the article and contacted the individual to ask if she could upload a free-use image as I couldn't find one online. I thought the subject met notability requirements because of the existence of significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources and was extremely careful to cite every statement made. I also noted that several existing wikipedia pages had referenced her name so that supported my decision to make the standalone page. I tried my best to make a well-sourced article and I believe that it belongs here. Yul B. Allwright (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evidence on twitter at https://twitter.com/123_christina/status/1268930659151642634 is that this page was NOT written by the subject, but by an unrelated person.
Yes, the subject is young, has no PhD, and does not meet the notability critera of WP:PROF. HOWEVER, she is notable under the WP:BASIC criteria. I am a professional (PhD, published) economist who has never met her, but I have been hearing a great deal from very distinguished economists about her efforts to improve opportunities for young Black women in our field. She has been interviewed by the St. Louis Fed as part of their series on Women in Economics here https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics/opoku-agyeman-and-traore If you look at the rest of that series (https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics), most of the people they have interviewed are clearly notable in the Wikipedia sense. By Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, selection for this very substantial interview by this independent source contributes substantially to establishing notability.
If she were only famous for her work creating The Sadie Collective, the WP:ONEEVENT critera might apply to this subject. However, now the subject has also received a great deal of media attention for organizing Black Birder's Week, such as https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/black-birders-week-black-in-stem-christian-cooper-scn-trnd/index.html. Thus, I believe WP:ONEEVENT no longer applies and she is notable under WP:BASIC.--EAWH (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" well referenced and agree with EAWH she is notable for her work highlighting black academics to a huge audience her notability goes far further than her position in academia as the cited references show. 2A02:C7D:6448:7E00:915F:7122:2435:2E7D (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC) nejaby (not logged in on phone)[reply]

Delete. It seems that the subject explicitly facilitated their Twitter followers to make an article for them, see here. Also, the use of hashtag #MyPriceJustWentUp by the subject only further adds to the concerns of self-promotion. On a somewhat related note, the individual in question clearly does not meet the general notability guidelines, despite the efforts of individuals associated the the subject (see here) to revert any good faiths edits flagging the article for further review. The subject is not an academic economist and has 0 (zero) peer-reviewed publications. Co-organizing 1 (one) student conference, co-authoring 1 (one) op-ed, and promoting a hashtag on Twitter do not warrant subject's article. --HRMbruh (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)— HRMbruh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject satisfies WP:BASIC, with independent coverage of the Sadie Collective or Black Birders Week from Scientific American, The New York Times, The Smithsonian, NPR, and CNN. I work in an unrelated scientific field, but there's plenty talk accross disciplines. I have no relation to the subject. Please review the edit history for any users suggesting deletion, including Geeferino, Economist4738, and HRMbruh. We may need to protect the article against vandalism. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of us are vandalizing the article, we are trying to make it clear that this person is self-promoting.

Here is a tweet by the subject asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her. She has no peer reviewed articles. She is not an academic. She is currently a research assistant who misrepresents herself to appear more significant, and this is part of that push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. This appears to be one in a series of articles being promulgated purely for self-promotion by an insular group of young academics who are popular on Twitter. Wikipedia is not a place to boost your friends' signals and pat yourself on the back for creating a page for them. Additional examples can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earyn_McGee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corina_Newsome (note the presence of common editors appearing on the histories of these pages such as Gthh, Hyperik, and Yul_B._Allwright.) Geeferino (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, not sure what you're trying to accuse(?) me of, but I noticed some "liked by" tweets in my feed about some new Wikipedia articles - check my edit history, I just clean up and expand Wikipedia articles related to plants, animals, and articles associated with plants and animals, like herpetologists, ornithologists, etc. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article and clearly satisfies WP:BASIC. Opoku-Agyeman's establishment of Black Birders Week alone warrants notability which has been covered in many news outlets including CNN and Smithsonian, among others. As others have already stated, this article was not self-created and is properly reporting on a notable figure. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EAWH, Kslays, Jayzlimno, note that WP:BASIC establishes necessary rather than sufficient criteria for a Wikipedia article. Is the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC in your opinion? Also, I'm a little bit concerned about the obvious meatputtetry in this AfD discussion. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bender235, WP:BASIC states People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. (the "additional criteria below" referring to ANYBIO and ACADEMIC) Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bender235, do me a favor and don't edit my posts. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember doing that. Could you point me to the relevant diff? --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. it was not you. it was another user. See here. Tho while I have you GNG is both necessary and sufficient for notability, FYI. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bender235 I'm more concerned with the users nominating to delete as their accounts have only been created in the last 2 days and their only edits are for support to delete this article. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I made this account to flag the article for review when I saw it starting to circulate among Twitter circles I follow in the interest of not getting doxxed by leaving my IP visible. That doesn't change the validity of the points being raised here. Perhaps Black Birders Week is deserving of its own article given the amount of coverage it received, but I strongly disagree that the subject of this article does. Geeferino (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a Wikipedian who had to make a new account to start the delete discussion because associating this delete discussion with my real professional account would lead me to severe harassment.

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ::I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --[[User:Bender235|bender235]] ([[User talk:Bender235|talk]]) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 :'''Comment''' Yes, I made this account to flag the article for review when I saw it starting to circulate among Twitter circles I follow in the interest of not getting doxxed by leaving my IP visible. That doesn't change the validity of the points being raised here. Perhaps Black Birders Week is deserving of its own article given the amount of coverage it received, but I strongly disagree that the subject of this article does. [[User:Geeferino|Geeferino]] ([[User talk:Geeferino|talk]]) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
+:'''Comment''' I am a Wikipedian who had to make a new account to start the delete discussion because associating this delete discussion with my real professional account would lead me to severe harassment.