Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iyiola Solanke

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iyiola Solanke

[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)

Low-citation record and article sourced by lots of web stuff. Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look. Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having reviewed some "web stuff", the subject's notability seems obvious. For example, the UCL appointed her as the independent chair of an inquiry and, in announcing this, gives details of her background which indicates that she is a respectable academic and author. Not seeing the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I did see that, but it's a press-release from her own institution on their own website. We don't count such instances toward notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that item was published by UCL while the subject is a professor at another institution and was specifically appointed as independent. This matter has been the subject of press coverage and the role seems both substantial and significant. This source is fine and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't being Chair in European Union law satisfy the notability guidelines? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Chair in EU Law and Social Justice" at Leeds looks on the face of it to be a pass of WP:PROF#C5. And there are enough reviews of her books to give her at least a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I made this page) - As per Eppstein, she passes WP:PROF#C5 and WP:PROF#C4 for her work supporting black women professors. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unsure why this was nominated in the first place. “Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look” is not solid grounds to nominate for deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

taking a look at Agricola44’s recent contributions might help you work out why; almost all trying to delete biographies of women.Jesswade88 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, and there it is! The accusation of sexism rears its ugly, but predictable (in ours times) head. How many of those bios were actually deleted? Almost all of them. Why? Because they were women? Hardly. It was because those individuals were not actually notable. Why were the articles created in the first place, then? To WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, of course. Much of WP editing is now dedicated to this social cause, which it confuses with encyclopedia-building. I remember some years ago when arguments like yours: "WP:PROF#C4 for her work supporting black women professors" were considered empty pleading. The fact nobody challenges this indicates how far our notability standards have fallen in the service of social justice. It is an indisputable fact that this person's scholarship is far below our typical minimum, that her title does not render her notable per se (as David's tenuous wording admits), and that announcements by institutions of pending hires do not count as RS toward notability (as Andrew continues to mistakenly believe). These are valid reasons for the community to pause to consider the qualification of any article (to "take a look" is what I said) and, of course, AfD is the main official mechanism by which to do this. So, thanks. Thanks a lot for the accusation. I'm saddened that my constructive efforts to build a serious encyclopedia (which are somewhat different from your constructive efforts, but no less useful or legitimate) are met with bullying accusations of bigotry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some evidence to support your 'indisputable fact'? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything, I just checked out your recent contributions. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:The duck test that sure looks like sexual bias to me... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chair. Seems to be fairly widely mentioned in media.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems to have been established pretty clearly by the subject being Chair in European Union law at the University of Leeds. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and, by the looks of it, WP:PROF#C5. Working to support black women (or any marginalized group) in academia would indeed be grounds for passing WP:PROF#C4, which asks for a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Authoring textbooks is the example for how to pass C4, but of course it isn't the only way. I'm not sure we have quite enough documentation to make that case in this specific instance, but it's superfluous either way. And she did write a textbook that turns up in a number of syllabuses (after [1][2][3][4], I stopped looking), which doesn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought Law, like pure mathematics, is an area of scholarship where citation counts have proven uninformative. And in the humanities generally, we look to book reviews in scholarly journals, which Solanke has received. She also appears to be a go-to source of expert opinion [5][6], which is another thing we look for (WP:PROF#C7). XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chair, and books receiving serious reviews, and clearly a notable person of the calibre invited to chair independent enquiries etc. PamD 18:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as explained by several others above. Sourcing for the book reviews was already present before this AfD...I disagree with the nominator's statement that her notability wasn't obvious. @Agricola44: I recommend you close this discussion; it's clear there isn't consensus to delete this article. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book reviews are enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Haukur (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2019 (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.