Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swaady Martin

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 Draftify‎. Sometimes reslitings can prompt a consensus as editors discuss the fate of an article. Just a note, do not strike out any "votes"/arguments unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet of a block-evading editor. Being an inexperienced editor, especially inexperienced with commenting at AFDs, doesn't warrant having ones opinion struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaady Martin

Swaady Martin (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 and WP: SIGCOV. There were questionable sources cited and they neither say why the article is notable. Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have also tried to review the article in question but the article major contributor kept reverting some of my good faith edits. And in order to avoid edit warring Otuọcha (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vandalism from Otuọcha (talk · contribs). Administrators have been informed. --BobVillars (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see no vandalism. Tagging by the nom seems appropriate but there has been edit warring to remove valid tags which has led to this AfD. Whether this AfD is valid remains to be seen but the sourcing of this article is very weak and should probably be at Draft instead of mainspace.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look carefully. Vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaady_Martin&diff=1210583169&oldid=1210582909 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaady_Martin&diff=1210583658&oldid=1210583406 ; More on the talk page of the user). Sources : https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-29887510 and https://www.bellanaija.com/2013/07/ivorien-ceo-swaady-martin-leke-is-creating-a-luxury-african-brand-watch-her-feature-on-cnns-market-place-africa/ (more very easy to find). It is an account created to make vandalism on Wikipedia and have fun. BobVillars (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Appearing on multiple sources even reliable ones doesn't mean Notability. They can be just mere press releases, blogs or created by the subject. The organisation she founded even fails WP: ORG. Thus, I can basically say there is no notability.

@BobVillars, you can also check this out, WP: MOS and WP: NOTABILITY. Otuọcha (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP: BEFORE, I also believe there can be sources out there. Simply rewrite the page, since the neutrality is disputed. Remember also that Press release and blog posts are not reliable Just advice!!! Otuọcha (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha, you can also check this out WP:DND and WP: Vandalism. --BobVillars (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per you user talk page, I also believe you have to read it and stop vandalism and having fun on Wikipedia. Just advice !!! --BobVillars (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BobVillars, while you may disagree with Otoucha's edits to this article and their nomination here, I'm not seeing anything that adds up to vandalism, which appears to independently be the conclusion that people are arriving at at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Otuọcha. Please desist from further accusations of vandalism without adequate evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ivory Coast, Liberia, South Africa, France, Switzerland, England, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just not enough sourcing. The Financial Times article is solid. The BBC is an interview, the rest are about her speaking in a panel of two or three people... This is brief coverage [1] and this is also a brief mention [2]. I tried French sources, not much else turns up. One more good source, I think we'd be ok Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : In 2012, Forbes considered her one of the 20 most influential young African women. I am happy with the sources. --Pasparfait (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Pasparfait (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The Forbes article is largely an interview with the subject thus neither independent nor reliable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although I would prefer better sources, the interviews have some valuable content before the interview. I can't find the specific guideline right now, but I remember somewhere seeing that although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. As such, if we accept the Financial Times source, then the couple of paragraphs introducing her in the Forbes article, we're good. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Significa liberdade yes, that's the case. Can you point out the three best ones? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This one is more on the line. Financial Times and Forbes are the best articles. I struggle to pinpoint a third. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided so let's try one more relist so this doesn't need to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree FT is a solid source but the others are interviews or not in-depth. I searched for other sources but came up with the same. The Forbes article is also largely an interview and was written by a contributor rather than staff so is not a reliable source per WP:FORBESCON. S0091 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – FT is gold standard. Concurring with Significa_liberdade, an article containing an interview can be secondary in some sections. There is another staff article on Forbes Africa not included currently, which is sufficient. TLA^tlak 13:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Forbes Africa is not Forbes. Forbes just licenses their name. See this CJR article. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know, hence why I said Forbes Africa. Is it not fair to presume they are generally reliable for now? TLA^tlak 03:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has no named author just "Forbes Africa" which is always suspect and the only policies/standards they have are Advertising Terms & Conditions and Privacy. Compare that to FT which has a named author and a robust Editorial Code. That's not say Forbes Africa is not usable but it needs to be used with caution so a weak source.

  As for the content you have highlighted below, the portions that talk about what she wants and what her plans are emanating from her as she is the only person that can know her wants/plans so that's primary and mostly about the business rather than her. YSWARA closed last year which is largely the claim for notability given almost all the sources are in the context of her founding YSWARA. I did check for sources in the past year but only found this which is mostly about Africa's agri-business in general with little independent content about her. Maybe she can meet notability in the future but she doesn't currently. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially every news source has articles that are bylined directly as their publication name, so I don't know if it's fair to say Forbes Africa is not reliable without any discussion, such as Forbes India.

  The first, part of the third, and the fourth paragraph seem secondary enough to me. Even if most of her notability stems from YSWARA that isn't a 1E thing or WP:INHERIT. I'd say it's still a weakish keep from me. TLA^tlak 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @S0091 said Forbes Africa is not Forbes which I concur. But @I'm tla, it's obvious the article on Forbes Africa is in no way talking about the subject except mentioning her for YSWARA, her brand which seems not notable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Even at some point, interviews per WP: INTERVIEW can serve as secondary source and per WP: COMMONSENSE, if and only if it's significant and thus, an indepth analysis for the subject. Some of the sources (per interview; if not all) in no way treats the subject solely and talked any information about the subject. How then, do it adds to notability. Example: a part of the article stated; In 2012, Forbes considered her one of the 20 most influential young African women. And looking at this source from Forbes, there were none like that. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with what you're saying about WP:INTERVIEW. We should also completely disregard the Forbes.com article as it's written by a contributor, per WP:FORBESCON, I also can't find where Forbes writes that she is one of the 20 most influential young African women.

  But the Forbes Africa article contains good information about her work. She is not inheriting notability from the company (there is essentially more about what she is doing with Yswara than what Yswara itself is doing).

• Comment Vote!s by sock puppets have been struck through.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - Per Oaktree b, we are not at GNG yet, but close. Strictly speaking then, it is not a keep on the sources we have thus far, and I am hesitant to suggest any kind of IAR keep. But look at the title of the Le Monde article that (briefly) mentions her as a woman in business in Africa: "On doit toujours prouver qu’on est capables" - "We must always prove that we're capable" and somehow I think this rings true in Wikipedia biographies too, which skew white male. If she were an American businessman, I bet the sourcing would be there. I think we probably should have this article, and the encyclopaedia would be a little better for having it. I am not happy with deleting this, whilst recognising that we could do with another secondary source. The article is a good start, but there is a lot more that could be done to it. Some of the statements appear somewhat promotional (e.g. the way the Forbes interview is presented). !voting draftify, where it could be incubated further, but if that doesn't have consensus, I'd be weakly for keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I think a keep is fine, I think this draftify idea is a good closer and appropriately addresses the delete votes. This probably shouldn't be relisted again, and there's consensus that one source, FT, is strong, but as we need "multiple" sources, interviews can be iffy. TLA^tlak 09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fine with Draftify. Pinging @Otuọcha, @Oaktree b and @Significa liberdade to see if we can get stronger consensus. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy to draftify (or delete at this point, too). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2024 (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.