Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Achapka

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Achapka[edit]

[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)

What Achapka is doing is definitely admirable but I can't find a single source that has in depth coverage of her. It appears this is far WP:TOOSOON. I should clarify that the sources provided on the talk also do not establish notability because they're interviews and not otherwise coverage - likewise, a search does not reveal actual coverage. Her position, again is admirable and I think she may one day be notable but not at this time.Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A google search of her doesn't show independent coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC) *Speedy Delete. Per the same reason I CSDed it. WP:A7. When the tag was removed I did a google search and did not find anything showing notability, and thought the same as Praxidicae about the sources.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. The article is also drowning in buzz words that tell us aboslutely nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave this quite a lot of thought and did a fair bit of googling. She is undoubtedly well known in certain circles, and the organisation she founded probably does important work. It's just that nothing appears to get reported in MSM, it's all social media and primary sources; whether that's because the organisation doesn't have a media-savvy press officer or the local press isn't interested in environmental issues, I don't know. Nevertheless the fact remains that we can't establish notability from RS, hence I'm voting to delete, albeit reluctantly because I do think that makes the article (stub) a victim of a policy technicality. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems that the American Vogue identified her as one of 13 women "climate change warriors" in December 2015, though I can only find the article as snippets on Pinterest such as here, and the EU-supported "#Women2030" site profiles her. PamD 08:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, this it? (I got it by clicking on one of the pins then hitting where it said “vogue.com” LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: Thanks, have now incorporated that source. PamD 21:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just found two news citations that confirm her position as Executive Director of Women Environmental Programme. There is a "disputed-discuss" tag in the article regarding her position, I did not remove the tag, (in the event that it would be controvertial to do so) however, I did add the two citations to the article. (There is also the United Nations program that lists her title here.) @DoubleGrazing: would you consider removing the tag? Netherzone (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Netherzone: of course the disputed tag can be removed as and when appropriate, but just to say that the two sources you've added are a year old and could simply be out of date; meanwhile according to WEP's own Twitter feed (I've included links to recent tweets in the talk page) someone else is the WEP Exec Director (unless there are more than one, of course!). DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Hello! I don't think Twitter is considered a RS, but I did go directly to the WEP website, and it lists her as the Founder/WEP Global President and HERE. So you are right, her title has changed. I know that is a primary source, but I believe it should be the correct title for her position now. Netherzone (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You're right, Twitter is pretty much the diametric opposite of RS (!); I only meant that if the organisation itself is tweeting via their official account that person NN is their Exec Director, then we can probably take that as read. Anyway, well done for finding those nuggets on their website, you've succeeded where I didn't. :) I'll go and remove the disputed tag if it's still there. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, the page seems to have been improved dramatically. IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Move to draft space. - While I do think it has been improved, I do still see a good chunk of claims sourced to interviews as well as a bit of a promotional form But I do feel with a bit of work it could be fixed up. Striking my vote and recommending move to draft space as this needs some more work till it should be posted. I will copy it over to my userspace and do some work on it myself as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners I have been working to improve the article, so the copy you may have in your sandbox may not be the most up to date. Much of the info sourced to interviews can be verified by secondary sources that have already been added. It would make more sense to work on the live article, at least to my way of thinking, since this AfD is linked to that and not to your sandbox - how would other editors know to look there? There is quite a lot of information on this person out there. I'm not sure why others had difficulty finding it. I search both "Priscilla Achapka", as well as her complete name, and "Priscilla Mbarumun Achapka". I haven't yet discovered her maiden name, but usually when I research a woman, I search under her maiden name as well. Let me know if you come across it. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been signifiantly improved since nomination. Mahveotm (talk) 17:15, 13 March 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.