Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annica Nsiah Apau

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 and redirect to Okyeame Kwame. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annica Nsiah Apau[edit]

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

Non-notable wife of a notable rapper. There is some coverage in RS but they are of a gossip-y variety, and focus solely on her status as "Okyeame Kwame's wife." This does not, in my opinion, make her independently notable. Any content worth preserving can be merged into Okyeame Kwame. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect - this was previously redirected to her husband's article, but the author undid that. I then applied a Proposed Deletion, which was removed. My reasoning was, "This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements - lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are only tabloid mentions of her, almost always in context of her husband.". In fact, all of the current references say "Okyeame Kwame's wife" (or equivalent words) in the title. Due to BLP concerns, and the nature of the sourcing, I think we best do her justice by covering anything in RS within Okyeame Kwame; Notability is not inherited. The current article contains negative information with dubious sourcing, and problems with giving undue weight to extremely non-notable information about her sex-life and menstrual cycle. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the coverage of Apau is mainly focused on her husband does not negate the fact that we have multiple indepth articles about her, this is enough to pass GNG. Something is off though. The Wikipedia article on her husband says they married in 2009, but this article [1] published last November if I am reading things right, says they have been married 12 years, meaning they would have married about 2004. There are more sources like this [2] from the Ghana Star on how she met her husband. Then there is this article [3] on how she wrote Okyeame Kwame's brand book. I am not sure I quite get what that all means, but people care about it. There is more coverage, and it looks to show a level of people paying attention to her to show she is notable. The rule that notability is not inherited does not mean we refuse article on people whose notability is reflective. There is enough coverage to show that she is notable, even if it all comes as a result of the focus on her husband. Although with the book and her being called his manager, it appears that she has a key role in propelling his continued rise to fame, not just the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but - in my own opinion - I'm not seeing the "significant coverage". There's an interview (primary), and then a few bits of facts in pulse and the pictorial.

My concern is, without more, we can't do justice to an autobiography; if that's all the info we have, it's bound to be skewed toward the tabloid crap. For example - what's her date-of-birth?

Incidentally, you need to remove or re-word born to parents who brought up their six children with both a heavy hand and a comforting bosom - it's close-paraphrasing, borderline copyright-violation.

I sort-of hope it can be fixed up, but if the information isn't out there, it might not be possible. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is my concern as well - only one the sources JPL linked is actually about Annica (the rest are clearly about her husband, but mention her), and the focus of almost every source on her that I've found is on her role as his wife. There's next-to-no reliable information about her as independent person, and we can't hang an encyclopedia article on "she married this dude who's famous and they have sex every day..." Just look at the articles, they are little more than celebrity gossip blogs. This is not the stuff that notability is made of. Far form it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to neutralize the wording.--Auric talk 19:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's just too skewed, because of the poor-quality of the sources. For example, the lead sentence, Annica Nsiah Apau is a well known Ghanaian entrepreneur, Business and Brand Development Manager who gained popularity in the country for being the force behind the brand Okyeame Kwame

That is hopeless POV; it should say something like Annica Nsiah Apau is a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Business and Brand Development Manager married to Okyeame Kwame"

But if trimmed to be neutral, there's no substansive content left.

You end up with "Apau is married to Kwame. She went to school and got a degree. They have sex a lot." - at that point, it's obvious she fails WP:GNG. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is not weather the source is about Nsiah Apua or about her husband. The question is weather the source provides indepth coverage. We can have an article on someone who has never had anything have them as the subject, as long as there is indepth coverage. On the other hand, we can delete an article where the person has often been the theoretical subject of articles, if they never provide indepth coverage. The test is not subject matter for a source, but how indepth the coverage of the subject is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside the gossips from blogs, the subject fails WP:GNG as notability is not inherited.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 18:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of the subject on Google doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The references in the article are about her husband, not her. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article seems to have a basic number of sources needed to validate the existence of an article. Perhaps some of the sources unique to the article might be ones that people in Ghana would be familiar with, but people in the West might be unfamiliar with. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that consensus about what to do with this article has not appeared yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per JPL, but is that last sentence in Critiscisms necessary? I mean, no one cares what they do in bed. And anyway, that "tidbit" of "information" seems more suited for a tabloid then Wikipedia. L3X1 (distant write) 14:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough credible reliable sources on the subject alone, also the article is not wiki worthy, it's something you'd read on dailymail. Tzsagan (talk) 07:41, 13 April 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.