Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Alexia Thomas

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Alexia Thomas

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

Vanity/autobiographical page. Author keeps removing deletion notices. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im currently working on this article, this is not autobiography, is a research im currently working on about this controversial person, im gathering more information about her, please dont delete the article, im working on it.If you keep deleting the article while im working on it you affect my ability to contribute to wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia thomas15 (talk • contribs)

If it's not an autobiography, then why is the subject's name also in your own username? Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't anything in the way of notability on the page. Also reading the above comments, this looks clearly to be a vanity page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: apparent COI and blatant promotionalism. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 20:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article has been significantly copy edited after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete technically a WP:G5, as both creator and CSD-remover have been blocked for sockpuppetry, otherwise clearly promotional/vitale without proper reliable sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it qualifies for Speedy G5 -- the creator was not banned when the article was created. She became banned for actions after creating the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my bad. The article has been significantly improved from the initial version. The organisations which she started would need articles, especially for her politician role as she does not appear to be an elected/appointed politcal figure. The others could have sections under her article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated by others; this is not social media. 331dot (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the page has been rewritten to be less promotional and by someone unaffiliated with this person. Kudos to Wikicology. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing your vote to Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little of any substance in the refs I can find, but lots of self promotion. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and snow Keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. We usually don't measure notability per sources provided in the article. Editors are expected to check if more reliable sources exist before considering a deletion. I found Independent Newspaper, The Latest News, Safari News, [Daily post, The Lead, Leadership newspaper, The Nation Newspaper, Leadership Newspaper, The Nation Newspaper, Leadership Newspaper, Ventures Africa, Leadership Newspaper, Vanguard Newspaper, CNN iReport, Vanguard News to mention few. I understand that the older version is shambolic but WP:AfD is not for cleanup and it is better to do this than to spend more time and energy on deletion discussion. I'm also aware of the obvious WP:COI but we can easily handle this. I will point the article creator to the relevant guidelines. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- iReport is not a reliable source. It should never be used in a BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IReport looks like a user-generated source to me and its usage on BLP may seem controversial but it's one of CNN's platform and only stories that are verified are approved for use on all CNN platform yet, I have no concern about its removal. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not verified. These stories even say "not verified by CNN" on the page. It's an easy mistake to make, but you need to watch out for these hosted "citizen journalism" portals on news sites. They are typically posted verbatim without any editing or fact-checking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete pre arguments above. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments? This is not an helpful comment and I don't see how this is a policy-based comment neither do I see how this comment is relevant. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Wikicology's findings (except iReport) all seem to hold up to GNG (not WP:PROF) and (as I commented above), Speedy delete G5 does not apply since user was not blocked when article was made. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive been working on the article, Ive added more sources and information, the article right now is more neutral than its original edition, so I think it can be keep right now. The person seem to be a controversial figure, Ive found some posts in some websites saying she is a scammer and a fraud (but nothing credible so far), it might be a good idea to include a section in the article about these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtros66 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep including if it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers), which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. Promotional article has no place in Wikipedia. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you might be familiar with WP:RS. You may quickly want to read it, digest it, perhaps for one or two days, relax for another one day, then return here to review your vote. I also have concern about your understanding of WP:ADVERT and it's relationship with WP:BLP. Please familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before commenting at WP:AfD. Kindly note that AfD is not a poling unit. Cheers.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very WP:CIVIL comment. The sources in the article are quite non-WP:RS. A number of references have the exact same phrasing and rhetoric, and based on their "About Us" sections seem more pr-oriented than news. Her political party is non-notable (no article), and if so opposed to the current political makeup of the UK you'd think there would be a reference from that country. She's a PhD.. of what and from where? A professor at what university? We are encroaching upon a WP:FRINGEBLP without adequate sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loriendrew, the fact that a subject do not have an article on Wikipedia does not make it non-notable. There are millions of notable topics out there and the fact that someone have not written about them here does not simply means they're not notable. Looking at this thread, I don't see where anyone argued that she passes WP:ACADEMIC. She obviously meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I couldn't verify the claim of "Professorship" and I've removed it for now per WP:V. You said the sources provided are unreliable. How are they unreliable? Can you point out the unreliable sources in the article? Does the news outlets belongs to her? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources and those posted above by Wikicology. Furthermore, the article has been significantly copy edited after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage now passes at least WP:BASIC, and in my opinion also WP:GNG, and the article re-write has toned down the promotional aspect, although it still needs more trimming. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in agreement with much of the above arguments. The degree to which, as of right now, the article needs systematic cleaning up is troubling. Still, I think that the coverage that's been cited above as well as in the article itself push things past the hurdle of WP:GNG. There should be more eyes on the page, yes, but it shouldn't be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Although the article is still in need of work that should not take away from the fact that the subject of the article is worthy of a place in Wikipedia. It seems she is an important figure in Nigeria, and her many projects,talents and influence seem to make her notable and worthy of an article.192.126.83.36 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2016 (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.