Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhtari Adanan

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 delete. Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtari Adanan

[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)

There are multiple trivial mentions for this investor, but he doesn't pass WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creating Africa's first and only AI VC fund is a monumental achievement by any measure. Otherwise, someone else would have done it by now... More importantly, it's of vital importance for Africa's AI start-ups to know about probably their only source of early stage VC funding... It's also inspirational news for Africans (1.3 billion people), and perhaps other developing regions... Everiperdia, which apparently has a similar voting mechanism to Wikipedia, has created a profile about him... Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. The rationale for keeping appears to be that he ought to be notable, not that he is. As for Everipedia, their policy (from their home page) is "Everipedia allows you to create an article about anything as long as you have a citation. This allows for a much broader scope of content in the knowledge base" DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Hi, I was referring to the fact Everipedia submissions are voted on by its members... However, I actually meant, the criteria for The Guinness of Records is being first and only, which this is, and thus by definition notable... Furthermore, encyclopedic criteria means it’s not just notable but relevant, this is the sort of information cash-strapped Africans - 1/4 of the world’s population - would actively search for given the rapidly growing impact of AI, e.g. automation rapidly replacing human workers... Incidentally, would this discussion be better had by the 1/4 of the world’s population affected, Africans, rather than those perhaps less affected - I’m a bit surprised we are having this discussion given its notability and relevance. I guess perhaps this is why some regions, e.g. Russia, are toying with the idea of creating their own version of the internet... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion in The Guinness of Records, for which, by the way, I see no evidence, are completely different from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Nowhere do we say that being the "first and only" grants notability, especially in such a narrow field as "creating Africa’s first and only artificial intelligence (AI) centric venture capital fund". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~keep~~ Hi, the sources categorically state he is the founder, how he created the firm, and why it’s notable, by for instance describing its pioneering nature... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which point of our definition of notability this satisfies. The word "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which may be different from the meaning that you give it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~keep~~ Hi, it clearly meets the following Wikipedia criteria from our definition of notability: “the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1]”. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to illustrate, his creating Africa’s first and only AI VC fund: meets the “remarkable” criteria by being unprecedented; meets the unusual criteria by being unique; meets the “interesting” criteria as AI’s rapid progress is probably the must exciting and worrisome development of this era; meets the “significant” criteria as it’s the only AI VC fund dedicated to cash-strapped African start-ups who serve a 1/4 of the world’s population, Africa; and “deserves attention” because it’s vital for information for the start-ups who serve a 1/4 of the world’s population - it may help to read the paragraph on Africa in venture capital to further appreciate the “remarkable” and “significant” nature... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this "remarkable" criterion from? I can't see it in WP:N. And we have articles on topics that have actually received significant attention in independent reliable sources, not those that deserve attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the preceding extract is actually cut and pasted from our definition of notability. Here it’s, literally cut and pasted again: “For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia”. However, his achievement has evidently received significant coverage in reliable independent media due to its monumental significance, i.e. unprecedented... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now: it's actually copied and pasted from WP:BIO, not WP:N. Why couldn't you just say so rather than make me waste time looking for it? You need to read beyond the first couple of sentences to find out what is actually required for us to have an article on a topic. We follow reliable sources rather than lead them. Now tell me which independent reliable sources have significant coverage of Adanan? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C’mon Phil, you’re being overly pedantic. I’m merely following the news... The sources of this Wikipedia entry categorically state he is the founder, how he created the firm, and describe the pioneering nature... Furthermore, he meets this criteria from the “People notable for only one event” subsection of WP:BIO: “if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one”. We really ought to be updating other entries... Thanks... Nneka Francis (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't say anything about Adanan other than that he founded the company. Why have an article about him rather than the company? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also creating an entry about the company, and linking them to each other (start-ups will research the VC and the person with the final word on their faith). I just happen to start with him, adhering to the guideline: “individual's role within it is a large one”... Like, I updated Google DeepMind’s entry with the departure of a founder, as well as his profile (Mustafa Suleyman)... Thanks Phil... Nneka Francis (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than PR puffery. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ @Praxidicae, why are you attacking my submissions with clearly baseless and inflammatory remarks... The rules stipulate evidence based discourse at all times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith - I came across your other article via page patrol which led me to this. You may not vote multiple times. Praxidicae (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicate, You said “no coverage” in the corresponding entry, which is patently untrue, e.g. Read Phil’s last comment above and my response... Nneka Francis (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what I said should be understood to be supporting either keeping or deleting the article about the company. I simply made the point that the sources cited don't provide coverage of the subject of this discussion beyond the bare statement that he founded this company. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify too promotional. That the individual has attracted a good feal of RR does not make for notability , but a better article with mroe slective refeences might be acceptable DGG ( talk ) 12:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I'll make it more bland... However, he's inextricably tied to this "major milestone for Africa" (a 1/4 of the world's population), whom it must be said appear to be under-represented on Wikipedia... Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Abishe (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he meets the criteria: “if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one”, from the “People notable for only one event” subsection of WP:BIO... Nneka Francis (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough sustained significant coverage to establish GNG at this time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from WP:BIO: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”: creating Africa’s first and only AI VC fund is “highly significant” for the 1.2bn Africans - against all odds (read Africa section of venture capital) to gauge its high significance... Thanks Nneka Francis (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, read WP:BLUDGEON. Secondly, given the concerns by several other editors about the promotional tone that both the articles about Adanan and his company and the language that you have used in your arguments in this AfD is prompting me to ask that you disclose any relationship with Xecced or Adanan per WP:COI. Thirdly, the significance of starting the first AI Venture capital firm (not the first AI firm, not the first venture capital firm; the first AI VC firm) is a bit of a niche and I'm not sure that that would entitle anyone to notability regardless of continent. GPL93 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think there's enough per WP:TOOSOON. When he actually does something actually notable, it can be re-created. Userfy if you must. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93, If by interest you mean I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, then the answer is an emphatic yes... I did say I would make it more bland... That said, Bolt is the fastest man ever, it sounds flashy, but it’s also a basic fact... It says AI VC fund not firm, the first and only fund for AI centric African start-ups, which these days encompasses most startups since AI is now part and parcel of all your digital interactions, e.g. Wikipedia bots to your Netflix and social media recommendations and the machines that assemble your car Nneka Francis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2020 (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.