Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Shaikh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are several different assertions below, let me go through the main two from those asking for retention: 1) The sources provided confer the requisite notability for passing WP:GNG. This has been shown during the discussion to be false. The majority of the sources are passing mentions, or are primary references. The only potentially useful reference, [1], is not enough to establish notability considering this. 2) Being a Senior TED Fellow confers inherent notability per WP:NACADEMIC. This is easily tossed out, as TED states themselves that "The TED Fellowship is not an academic fellowship".

Given this information, it is impossible for the seeming lack of consensus here, to override the community consensus as laid out in our policies. Therefore this article is found to lack the necessary notability for retention, at this time. (Note: This close holds no prejudice towards an article being re-created in the future, if requirement fulfilling sources are found. This close was done in consideration of and accordance with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:RS, WP:BASIC, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:ANYBIO.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Shaikh[edit]

Alanna Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim of notability is being a TED Fellow, which is not enough. Plenty of coverage by her, but little of her on the web. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Doing a google search this way uncovers numerous interviews and articles. The amount of work she has completed alone should qualify her, but she has also been the subject of objective, third party coverage. One does not become a TED fellow by sitting around, and clearly she has done quite a bit of work. Easily passes GNG -- that said, the article needs work. Montanabw(talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on your google-search link, I do find interviews, but on websites such as humanitarianjobs.wordpress.com i.e. self-published/unreliable. If it so easily passes GNG, would you care to give a few precise links?
About the amount of work she has completed alone should qualify her - which guideline are you referring to? If it isWP:ANYBIO #2, there would be interviews anyways.
Finally, while being a TED fellow is something, I am not aware that it was ever considered as a presumption of notability. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, from the first two pages of results from the search I linked above (which you could also have looked at) include published works, interviews of her, and other coverage: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] , [8], [9], [10],[11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Now stop arguing and do a little more research; just because an article is poor quality doesn't mean it's deletion material. Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) internal press release of a board change (i.e. SPS). (2) published by the subject, not an RS. (3) wordpress.com blog (which I mentioned in my comment, BTW). (4) primary (see http://bloodandmilk.org/about-3/). (5) user page. (6) is decent, but not enough on its own. (7) passing mention in a non-RS pointing to (4). (8) very passing mention; (9) and (10) not independent (promoting their own seminars), and I doubt "worked for Devex" is a claim to notability. (11) arguably passing mention, and in any case "spoke at a conference" is not a claim to notability. (12) I cannot access. (13) self-promotion (not independent). (14) is OK-ish, like (6) it is a book, but with 54 interviews of professionals in the area which makes it worse (the more people are in there, the less any of them can claim notability).
So that leaves me with 2 sources, maybe 3 depending on what is in (12). I do not see that amounting to "enduring historical record" of WP:ANYBIO, nor "widely citations by the peers" or "well-known work or body of work" regarding her writings for WP:NAUTHOR, nor "significant coverage" of WP:SIGCOV (plus, the sources are not great on the WP:RS side).
FWIW, I had found (1) through (5) and (13) before nominating. Just because we could write a verifiable article with a neutral tone does not mean it is a valid topic. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you're trying to make, but any person who has generated enough coverage for GNG is a valid topic for Wikipedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My view is precisely that none of the sources meet the GNG criteria "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Considering the !votes so far, it is pretty clear the community disagrees. Not withdrawing though, as I am still not convinced. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clear this article needs to be improved, not deleted per WP:ATD. Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seem to be enough good sources for this article to have the necessary expansion, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG. Thanks to Montanabw for digging out the sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails GNG because GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I did find sources, but it seems most of them were written by her, not about her. Anything written by the subject is not an independent source. This is an important distinction to make. Tigraan's analysis of sources is correct and shows why it doesn't meet GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respectfully disagree, Tigraan's comment was "Only claim of notability is being a TED Fellow, which is not enough." I disagree, the TED fellow honor recognizes her work, which is clearly quite extensive, but also it is work with the poor, and work in international development, which is not a popular topic with the mainstream press. We have enough, third party coverage, if you look at the sources I posted, which include interviews with her and other coverage, not her own writings (which are quite extensive). Montanabw(talk)
  • I'm referring to this analysis by Tigraan about your sources, which I find quite persuasive. Many of these are unfortunately not reliable or not independent or have trivial coverage. Being a TED Fellow is not enough and GNG still needs to be satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of sources:
  1. 1 Self published, not independent
  2. 2 Not independent, written by her
  3. 3 Self published, not reliable
  4. 4 Not independent, her own website
  5. 5 User page, not a reliable secondary source
  6. 6 Reliable, although it was in a guidebook and her example was used in a chapter about job search. They used her resume as an example and asked her questions about her careeer. Not great as I don't consider it a proper secondary source, but I will pass
  7. 7 Not a reliable source, user generated content. I mean see this quote: Got a career question? Alanna can answer it. And if she can’t, she’ll find someone else who can. For a nominal fee ($2/month) you get access to her insights on job hunting, grad schools, career paths and more.
  8. 8 Trivial mention, (a quote) in a user submitted content.
  9. 9 Not independent, she seems to have worked for them before and they are promoting her
  10. 10 Not independent, they are promoting their own webinar
  11. 11 Not a reliable source. Simply a user profile listing for a conference which we don't use for notability.
  12. 12 Unable to check, there is no way online to see inside this book.
  13. 13 Not independent
  14. 14 Reliable, but I am not sure what the selection criteria is.
  15. [16] Not independent Written by her
  16. [17] Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  17. [18] Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  18. [19] Guest at a podcast, not a reliable secondary source. This is also NOT an interview

The book features over 100 people from STEM field and 54 other profiles. That isn't a very solid indication of notability.

6 and 14 are not enough. Being a TED fellow doesn't mean a person is automatically notable. Our notability guidelines are very clear that if reliable independent secondary sources do not exist, we shouldn't really have an article unless it passes one of the other notability criteria. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Lemongirl942 has asked for relisting Sam Sailor Talk! 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have sat on the fence for a while to see what sources would emerge, but I have been disappointed by the result. The article contains zero in-depth independent sources and so cannot satisfy WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. The current article is essentially unsourced and Tigraan's analysis of the inadequacy of the available sources is convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Lemongirl942 analysis above. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Montana, HM, Atlantic, and Mega. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any independent sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I pointed to 14, or did you not look at them? Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your response to Tigraan's demolition of them? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan noted the links to one wordpress site and ignored all the ones that are neutral, third-party sources. There are interviews, there are mentions in books, a significant number of articles she published are all on a third-party site and not just her own bloodandmilk site. The PBS interview on the show "on being" is a major source. This is a prolific activist and while I personally think being named a TED Fellow is pretty notable in and of itself, the weight of the work that they considered in presenting the award can be independently considered here. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources to be integrated
  1. The Telegraph
  2. The Guardian 1
  3. The Guardian 2
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview

WP:GNG met. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging these up. #1 is an article on her approach to Alzheimer’s disease, the others are just mentions in passing. Unfortunately they don't add up to WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  1. The Telegraph Not independent Written by her
  2. The Guardian 1 Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  3. The Guardian 2 Trivial mention (one sentence) in sponsored content
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview Guest at a podcast, not a reliable secondary source. This is also NOT an interview
Someone who is notable would definitely have people writing about them. This doesn't seem like the case here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Telegraph Written by her - yes and can still be used to support content in the article. Is there not an editor at The Telegraph? How do they approve what is published in their paper? How many people does it reach?
  2. The Guardian 1 measured together with numerous additional "trivial mentions" in global newspapers where she is quoted as an expert per WP:BASIC}
  3. The Guardian 2 measured together with numerous additional "trivial mentions" in global newspapers where she is quoted as an expert - per WP:BASIC
  4. Minnesota Public Radio interview Program was hosted by Minnesota Public Radio and is considered an interview according to Wikipedia
  5. New one Mother Jones "trivial mention" to be measured together with all "trivial mentions" per WP:BASIC
  6. "most read articles in Alliance Magazine in 2011" NYU Development Research Institute WP:BASIC
Also, Lemongirl942 curious if you'd hold the same interpretation of Wikipedia policies to articles like Adrian Hong? Hmlarson (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuffexists. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that essay. My question is about policy. Hmlarson (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your queries Hmlarson
  1. Not independent per WP:BASIC Yes and can still be used to support content in the article - but not notability. We are debating notability here. "Independent" is the keyword. Otherwise everyone can write about themselves, get it published.
  2. Nowhere does it say she is "an expert". And even if it did, a quote is a trivial mention. Also, the content is "sponsored"
  3. Same as above
  4. Yes, it is independent, but not a secondary source. And also, had it been a sole interview about the subject and discussing the subject's life and work, I would have considered. But it is not. They are discussing something else and she is guest on the show. Being a guest doesn't make a person notable, otherwise all guests to talk shows would be notable.
  5. Motherjones: Trivial mention that too in a far removed context. You can see the footnote at WP:BASIC about trivial coverage.
  6. Publishing an online article (for one specific non-mainstream magazine) and then using webviews for it, is not a claim of notability.
I appreciate your work trying to find sources. Since you talked about Adrian Hong who is also a TED fellow, my conclusion is that being a TED fellow in itself is not enough. However if sources like this Washington Post article which focuses substantially on the person/a work by the person can be found or if the person has been featured in a book (which has received multiple secondary reviews), then the person is notable. Unfortunately, nothing similar can be found for Alanna Shaikh --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl942 It's clear your interpretation of policy is different from many editors. While I have enjoyed learning how to use font coloring for emphasis, I guess we'll see where the deletion discussion goes. Hmlarson (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that notability is not established, she hasn't had the level of coverage that the male TED fellow you mention has, but she IS mentioned in books, she HAS been interviewed by multiple sources (if less prestigious ones) and if we are going to go into OTHERSTUFF, for pete's sake, they just KEPT another article on some stupid pornstar -- we have got our priorities seriously screwed up around here if the only articles about women we keep are ones who take their clothes off! Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I sympathise with WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I come from a part of the world (so called "third world") which suffers from it. But correcting this on Wikipedia is essentially advocacy and I am opposed to any form of advocacy. If there has to be a discussion that notability standards for women or people fro certain countries should be lowered, I am willing to take part in it. But till that time we respect what is available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes I am opposed to WP:PORNBIO because having a lower notabilty standard for porn stars is advocacy as well. Where is this AfD? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your definition of advocacy Lemongirl942? It's clear you have strong opinions - but unclear how that impacts your interpretation of policy. Hmlarson (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ADVOCACY This is a good essay which is similar to my own thoughts about the first 2 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. In general, I feel Wikipedia as an Encyclopaedia should mirror the world and articles on Wikipedia should represent how the state of the world is, unless there is consensus which decided otherwise. The GNG needs to be applied equally on article subjects regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and ethnicity. (However, this can change if we have consensus for having separate notability requirements for subjects affected by systemic bias, and I am not opposed to such a change. We have done it previously based on occupation for academics and musicians so we can do it for other cases as well). But till that time, we need to respect the current notability guidelines which apply equally regardless of gender. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is clear this article subject passes WP:GNG due to the dearth of reliable independent sources easily found by Montana. The person is notable. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These sources seem to me to clearly surpass WP:GNG, and the attempts to argue with every single person arguing for keep are pretty querulous. We get it, Lemongirl942 takes a different view of these sources from many others; insistently trying to argue with every respondent doesn't invalidate the abundance of different views as to those sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll self-source an observation: "Timbo's Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Virtually the whole content here appears derived from THIS BLOG: "Alanna Shaikh is a global health and development specialist with a decade of experience in the Middle East and Central Asia. Shaikh has worked for NGOs, consulting companies, universities, the U.S. government, and the United Nations. She writes about global health for UN Dispatch and about international development on her blog Blood and Milk. She holds an undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and a Master’s degree in Public Health from Boston University. She lives in Dushanbe, Tajikistan." Maybe an important person worthy of encyclopedic biography on an IAR basis, maybe we should be making TED Fellowship an automatic Keep criterion, there's room for debate about those things... On the matter of simple up or down over GNG or whether the ACADEMIC special guideline is met — let's just say that case really does need to be made a little better. I offer no opinion about deletion. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the references in the article so they could be easily used by editors to expand content and there would be more than 1 per WP:CITE. As noted, "Timbo's Rule 14" is a personal assumption. Though creatively named, it's about as effective here as a Jump to Conclusions mat (see Office Space). Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Carrite, also it's unsightly to have so many references in the lede. Though as Hmlarson says, it was a helpful to have the references there while expanding the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutral per the lack of evidence for notability Darwinian Ape talk 20:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NEWSBLOG allows some blog material to be considered reliable, and in the context of a TED Fellow, a TED blog would be RS for its contents. What I see is that this is an example of "stacking," while any one GNG criterion, taken individually, might not cut it, the total does. Montanabw(talk)
      • Upon further analysis, I decided to remain neutral because I might see a notability argument for her senior Ted fellow status, though the sourcing as it is does not seem enough for GNG. Darwinian Ape talk 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmlarson - and I do think that per Carrite, we need to have a discussion about whether or not at TED Fellowship confers notability. I'm inclined to say it does. Keilana (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would consider a TEDFellow to meet WP:NACADEMIC #3 and possibly #2. It is at least as selective and prestigious as an IEEE Fellow etc. If Senior TED Fellow is arguable under NPROF I would say it is not under WP:ANYBIO#1. See my additional arguments re its selectivity vice IEEE Fellow here and re application of WP:BASIC here. JbhTalk 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 16:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The article passes WP:GNG due to its reliable sources. Furthermore, I greatly agree with the WP:NACADEMICS point made by Jbhunley. However, I do think the page requires expansion. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 02:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:GNG fail. Being a TED fellow does not automatically establish notability. SSTflyer 02:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NACADEMICS point. Miyagawa (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR - her book is self-published. Amazon. Does not meet wp:ACADEMICS - almost no writings and very very few cites. G-scholar. Does not meet GNG because the info about her on the TED talk page is not independent, may even have been written by her. What remains are brief mentions and quotes. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough and as for being a TED speaker, well as mentioned above, that's something not offered to just anybody. Indication that she is considered an expert in her field. Article can be improved and expanded but no need to delete. MurielMary (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the provided references such as the Guardian are very minor quotes. I do not see enough independent significant coverage to establish notability. Ted Talks: not particularly reputable or carefully vetted, if you go by Elizabeth Holme's TEDMED talk all about a new revolutionary blood testing technology called Theranos.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article meets WPGNG because of all the sources listed in the article. The person is notable. Zpeopleheart (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I still see nothing motivatingly convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG; sources are all blogs or minor coverage. It is peculiar that if TED fellowship confers notability, there is nonetheless little reliable sourcing. With a h-index of 3, it is unlikely that she is prominent as an academic. — Esquivalience (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are a mix of trivial mentions, blog posts, self described bios, sponsored material, and so on. Also this discussion shows that having some fame does not equal notability. There is a difference if there is not proper coverage in independent reliable sources. And, it can be seen that there is a difference between simple promotion and coverage in independent reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not understand why so much is being written about this AfD while an Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monita Chatterjee about a much better qualified woman scientist is completely ignored. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Reply: Probably because it was created by a known sockpuppet account and also it hadn't been tagged for one of the WikiProject Women groups. That does seem like a too-hasty delete, but then, I didn't see the article, so I can't evaluate it. It didn't show up at the article alerts that bring interested project members to these articles when they are tagged in various ways. The posting of these AfDs isn't even done for the various deletion-related topics very well, and projects NEVER get pinged automatically, it always requires an interested editor to post a note. Have someone userfy the article in your userspace, {[u|Xxanthippe}} and ping me, I'd be glad to look it over and give you a sense of whether it is a good idea to re-start it or not, and if it's got potential, we can see if it could be brought up to par. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TED fellows are not necessarily notable, and the other material is more in the direction of Not Yet Notable -- but trying to be promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better RSS included appropriately into the article. If a reference is good enough to be used to defend an article against deletion, it should by definition be good enough to put into the article, so expand the article and reference if the above SS are good enough. Again: effort in the AFD debate versus effort into the article !? Aoziwe (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being a Senior TED fellow, and a TED speaker, plus the other sources discussed above, meet GNG. (Disclosure: I am a Wikipedian in Residence at TED.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "Ted fellow" is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia per WP:PROF. This is not the same as earning a prestigious fellowship with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for example [20]. Not even close Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just a "Ted fellow", she's a Senior TED fellow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "Senior Ted fellow" is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia, per WP:PROF. This is not the same as earning a prestigious fellowship within the Royal Society, for example. Not even close. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. One of the world's most notable aid workers, as demonstrated by the extensive coverage.
Some seem perplexed about why she receives so much attention compared to other scientists who rank much higher in citation indexes. While technical rankings can be useful, many of the folk who control coverage in reliable sources are more interested in impact on the world. Thanks to Alanna and similar aid workers, infant mortality in Africa, while still too high, has reduced massively this last decade. In RoW, populations are mostly falling or static (still rising in Asia, though at a deacreasing rate, which is expected to stop soon.) In Africa, women on average have over 5 babies each, and thanks to better health care over 85% of those babies survive to reproductive age. Population growth is already rocketing, and the unchallenged consensus among demographers, UN officials etc is that Africa will dominate the worlds population growth for the rest of this century.
The unstoppable Africanisation of the worlds population is the single biggest change facing the human race – billions of fervent Christians to change the world for the better, who are in many cases naturally inclusionist in their cultural output - spiritually and economically as well as in the more obvious ways. For example mobile money companies like m-pesa, co invented and popularised in Africa, now providing financial inclusion for unbanked individuals across eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.
As one of the planet's foremost aid workers, Alana is one of the people most responsible for the better health outcomes driving the African population boom. This is why shes invited to speak at TEDs so often, while scholars cited more often in top journals are not. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an eye to a future entry. At the moment most of the case for this entry seems to be WP:ORIGINAL--to me she does sound interesting and important, to the extent I'm surprised this discussion has not turned up a profile of her from an independent, reliable secondary source, and I'd love to see this entry resubmitted if or likely when that does happen (or better still, happens nmore than once), but the general principle that Wikipedia editors should not take on the task of evaluating the legitimacy and significance of primary sources seems both 1, applicable, and 2, well-advised, given the way this debate illustrates how hard that can be to sort out! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not see any mention in the article of her writings at UNDispatch (Not an organ of the UN but sponsored by The United Nations Foundation) so there may be some WP:NJOURNALIST criteria if anyone wants to go digging. She is being quoted in news articles as the primary "counterpoint" voice. See "GLOBAL: USAID urged to tackle urbanization". IRIN Africa English Service. 19 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)  – via HighBeam (subscription required) She and her writings/blogs have been mentioned in David Lewis; Dennis Rodgers; Michael Woolcock (23 January 2014). Popular Representations of Development: Insights from Novels, Films, Television and Social Media. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-90263-6. so here social media work (that is what the book is looking at) is recognized as influential there.

    As to the "notability" of the being a TED Senior Fellow from this they chose 10 people in 2015 from a group who had already been TED Fellows so it is rather selective. To compare in 2015 the IEEE (the society given as an example in NPROF) elevated 297 of the 833 people nominated as an IEEE Fellow [21]. JbhTalk 23:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like there is an entire profile of her in Mueller, Sherry Lee (Feburary 26 2014). Working World: Careers in International Education, Exchange and Development. Georgetown University Press. From TOC:Chapter 5 - PROFILE: Alanna Shaikh, Director of Communications, Outreach, and Public Relations, for AZ SHIP, Abt Associates {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - enough to get over GNG unless the TOC turns out to be totally misleading. @Montanabw: JbhTalk 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is available for Kindle at Amazon [22]. I just lucked out finding a copy of the table on contents at the Georgetown Press site. There is a posibility that this is an online version from something called AcademLib but the site looks sketchy. JbhTalk 02:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same reference 6. We have already looked at it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As folk like Andy and JBH have advised she's a Senior TED fellow, which is a very selective position. So as one might expect, folk have written multiple entire profiles about her. Alanna is one of only 10 people to have a profile in the book Getting your first job in relief and development by good Nick Macdonald a leading aid worker and university lecturer on international dev. Alanna was the only one to whom he dedicates two whole chapters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That "book" is a self published ebook, see this. We don't use WP:SPS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. We do use self published sources in some circumstnaces. Please read your WP:SPS link, it specifies exceptoins. However, I hadn't read WP:RS for a few years, and I agree that with current wording, policy allows Nick's book zero weigtht towards noteability for Alanna's article. So it's fortuneate she still easilly passes WP:GNG regardless. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's a difference between RS that support content and RS that confer notabilty. Looking at the sources above, it's clear that there hasn't been broad coverage in multiple independent sources of her, and so she does not meet GNG. Many passing mentions or self-published sources do not add up to in-depth independent sources. Ca2james (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm.... you do realize I just provided a book by Georgetown University Press which devotes many pages to her? While it is indeed a profile/example it is a secondary RS from a university publishers which essentially verifies her entire CV because they found her significant enough to use as an example so that can be used to write quite a good article. What more do you want than extensive coverage in a scholarly publication?? JbhTalk 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC) (@Lemongirl942:, I am interested in your thoughts on this as well as I simply do not see the logic you are applying here. GNG requires significant coverage how is the coverage in Working World alone not significant particularly when there is so much other material which, once notability is established, can be used to write a good article. Note in scholarly works are way up above a couple of 2 paragraph articles in a regional newspaper which is what gets most people over GNG. She does not need to meet any NPROF SNGs if she passes GNG and I do not see how you can argue, at this point, that she does not. Thanks.) JbhTalk 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if the chapters in Getting your first job in relief and development mentioned by FeyHuxtable above pan out that is coverage in two separate books! JbhTalk 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Typo in username re-pinging @FeydHuxtable: JbhTalk 13:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: The book by FeydHuxtable is actually a self published ebook assembled from blog posts (See this blog). The quality of sources is important. The other book is OK, but not enough to pass GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A SELFPUB work is of no help. We will need to agree to disagree on the other book though. On its own it may be arguable but in combination with the other coverage, including brief mention of her work in another academic book, the TED Senior Fellowship and a small, but based on the topic not insignificant numbers of quotes in RS I have to say she passes GNG. The Georgetown press book shows third party interest in her career why else interview her and use her as an example. It is at least as good several columns in the NYT and that gets people over GNG all of the time. The additional bits, even if not significant on their own, show her effect and notability is not transitory.

There is enough material out there to write a good biography, her profile in the Georgetown Press book essentially turns her entire resume into a secondary source - per Wiki - because it is being used as an illustrative example and is being presented under the rubric of a publication "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" so it is not the same as pulling it off of her web site. As to the interview questions - we would not throw out an interview piece from the NYT as "primary" we would see it as an indication that someone at the NYT saw the person to be significant enough to interview in the first place.

I can see the arguments for how she may be marginal but, in my opinion and by my editorial judgement, that margin falls on the side of keep. This is not a person pushing self promo - I might be inclined to delete in that case. She has a major accomplishment per TED, an academic thought her career was worthy of study, another made specific study of her effects on social media and she gets quoted both in the popular press and, even as a non academic, in a couple papers. All of that adds up to "significant" when I see people passing AfD with editors regularly saying "two or three mentions of a paragraph or so in a major regional newspaper" is enough to be"significant coverage". My firm opinion is she is way over that and I am solidly in the "deletionist" camp (23 Keep out of 320) (Although I do see we have a similar voting pattern but you have a better 'hit' rate than I so maybe your read is better than mine) Edge cases like this is where we exercise our editorial judgement and I just can not come up with a solid arguement for delete that does not make me feel that I am stretching the criteria to keep a good bio out. (Not saying others are doing that just trying to explain my personal thoughts) It is late here and I am likely rambling so I will leave it at that. JbhTalk 05:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.... you do realize that to confer notability, coverage has to be independent and in-depth significant? The "many pages" are an interview with her, which is not an independent source. Sure, it's a reliable source and would flesh out an article but it doesn't confer notability. And as far as being a TED senior fellow, there's no guideline that says that this automatically confers notability. Therefore, unless you have an independent source that talks about her being a TED senior fellow, she still doesn't pass GNG. It isn't enough that she is this or that; people have to be talking about her being this or that. Ca2james (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC) (edited Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
WP:GNG only demands "significant coverage", not "in depth coverage" as some seem to be reading it. They're not the same thing, though Alana would pass by either definition.
Also, the fact the "Working World" source conducted an interview doesn't mean it lacks independence! Many profile writers, and just about every biographer of a living person conducts interviews while writing a bio. A source lacks independence only if its in some way controlled by the subject, such as written by the subject themselves or paid for by the subject. If you need further help understanding this, the patient folk over at WP:RSN would be happy to help you out.
@ JPH thanks for the ping. I share your astonishment at this discussion. Struggling to find reasons, I wonder if it's as Alanna is too good a person for her own good? What I mean is, it's impossible to find negative coverage to balance out the many positive things one could say about her. She has a rare, almost paradoxical quality of self effacement combined with luminous generosity of spirit. Which is why even haters don't tend to say anything bad about her. It would be trivial to fill her article with statements demonstrating she's one of the worlds most prominent aid worker. Many books list her in their top 10 authorities to consult, often even ahead of heavy weights like Duncan Green. Former Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzi isn't even directly involved in development but has still noted Alanna as a top global influencer. The Guardian ranked her as number 1 twitter user in development. Even Helen Clark , former Newzealand PM and no 3 at the UN was only listed as "tenth most interesting" , with good Jeffery Sachs at no 11. I've not added such content to the article as with no critical coverage to balance it out, some might see it as promotional.
As you've clearly demonstrated, she easily meets GNG. Multiple profiles in books, including a university press book, literally thousands of mentions in development related websites, as well as substantial coverage in mainstream news papers, both in the Anglosphere such as New York Times and the Telegraph, and in non English media such as Deutsche Welle. Not that she needs it, but she also passes SNGs several times over. WP:NACADEMIC only requires the subject to meet one of its criteria; Alanna seems to meet 1-3 and 7. This AfD has already been closed as Keep, yet one of the delete voters did not accept community consensus and got it re-opened. Why is so much energy and aggression being expended on trying to destroy this article, when the policy based case for keeping is so overwhelming? Im sure delete voters have some sort of good faith IAR reasons, but like yourself I'd be interested if they could explain? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested to see this coverage in The Times, The Telegraph and Deutsche Welle. Can you link me please? If they're actually secondary sources (I only see The Telegraph piece she's written, which is a primary source) that substantially engage with her work, together with the Georgetown UP chapter she might meet WP:BASIC for me in which case I would change my vote. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing: Deutsche Welle The New York Times FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable I did mean significant and not in-depth and I've adjusted that. Being a number 1 twitter user in development isn't something that confers notability because it's not a major award. Unless any of these "thousands of mentions" are significant mentions, they don't support notability. She's also not an academic and most definitely does not meet WP:NACADEMIC - I couldn't find any indication that she has published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications so doesn't meet criteria 1 (see WP:NACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes). Of course if there is significant coverage in the Times, Telegraph, and Deutsche Welle, I'd be interested in seeing it, but the articles you've linked to aren't about her; they mention her only in passing so aren't considered significant mentions. Ca2james (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree with Ca2james that the secondary sources are still too thin to meet WP:BASIC: one book chapter and two short passages in articles that--while reliable--don't get to her until 10+ paragraphs in doesn't feel like significant coverage of her as a subject. Will post a note below asking for arguments under a different header. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Can anyone make an argument for TED Senior Fellows conferring notability under a rubric other than WP:NACADEMIC? To me the latter does not apply here at all, as Shaikh is not an academic and TED is not a scholarly society, but if TED Senior Fellowship meets some other notability guideline, great. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can. Good editors like Andy are voting keep on the bases of her senior TED fellowship alone, as that is all that's needed per Wikipedia policy. If you look at the Additional criteria section of WP:BIO, its says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" . Then under Any biography it says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times."
Note that in the cases of pornographers: "a well-known and significant industry award." is sufficient. I'm a man who appreciates folk who make a living by taking their clothes off, but even I'd not be happy if Wikipedia ranks a pornography industry award above an honour so widely respected as being a senior TED fellow. It's embarrassing! It's this kind of deletionist nonsense that drives almost all folk who are accomplished in global affairs away from Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's now look at the view Alanna might not be an academic. One can see how that may be true by some personal definitions, e.g. if you think an academic has to be someone who works at a uni or college. However, Wikipedia consensus is all about putting policy ahead of one's personal definition.

Note how WP:Bio defines academics: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

As per sources above, Alanna is a top global influentier in the field of dev. As the United nations have noted, "Alanna has a knack for explaining complex global health issues in a language accessible to non-experts" She has an MPH. Much of her professional work has been as a researcher. This is why four keep voters have cited WP:NACADEMIC.

Even if folk insist on interpreting policy as excluding Alanna from being an academic, there is no question that she's notable due to the extensive coverage she's received in reliable, independent sources. Note the wording from WP:Bio "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This implies that a single source is sufficient, when the coverage is substantial as is the case with our university press source. As a top global influencer in her field, Alanna is naturally also covered extensively in the specialist press. For example Alliance magazine which is one of the world's top publications in dev and philanthropy; its readership includes dozens of billion heirs. Or the top Spanish language dev magazine Ecología Política . Sadly, the non trivial coverage of Alanna is either behind a payroll or offline. However, I've written several dev articles over the years, e.g. Seoul Development Consensus or The World Development Report 2011 and have displayed a reasonably in depth general understand of the field, e.g. Talk:Hunger#changes_made_04_Dec_2012. So perhaps you can accept I have seen detailed coverage of Alanna in those publications? Even if not, coverage in main stream online sources, like the 5 paragraphs engaging with her work in both the The New York Times and Deutsche Welle are easily sufficient for her to pass WP:BASIC, not that she even needs to, as per policy she's notable by several of criteria. Thanks for the good question and being open to policy based discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what we have here, I'm not going to change my vote. My view has not changed on WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC, and I don't believe TED Senior Fellow is a "well-known and significant award" for WP:BIO. If it were, one would expect to see secondary source coverage of the announcement of Shaikh and others appointed as TED Fellows (as one does, incidentally, for pornography awards), but we have not. (It thus seems appropriate to me that Wikipedia redirects TED Fellows to the TED (conference) page, rather than gives it a standalone entry, and I can't see how a non-notable award can confer notability on another subject.)
I considered briefly whether I thought TED was enough to establish Shaikh as significant within her field, but absent confirmation from other specialist sources, I'm uncertain, and asking people to take sources on faith is diametrically opposed to WP:V. I understand the frustration that what seems to be a good person doing good work might not qualify for Wikipedia, but it does not overrule the principle that these decisions should be made from sourceable information, not individuals vouching for them. Absent additional sources (and I'll confess I don't think it's a great sign that even this very lengthy discussion still has not produced them), I don't see a notability guideline that's met here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. The sole question at AfD is notability, which can be be established either directly with multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG or presumptively, e.g., as a WP:SCHOLAR. I reviewed each of the sources cited in the article and made a good faith attempt to search for others. My conclusion is that the sources to support notabity do not exist. Her own articles are obviously WP:PRIMARY, but so are the WP:INTERVIEWS and passing mentions where she's quoted on various topics. I simply could not find the sources I would need to support a keep. I also do not believe she qualifies for presumptive notability based on either TED fellowship (not quite the same as, e.g., an IEEE fellowship) or as a scholar based on her meager citation count. I came here from the discussion of systemic bias at WP:N talk page to get a background on the issue. But this is not the poster child for claims of bias. This is someone who's just not (yet?) notable under our guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is closed, but for anyone interested in working on this article I userfied the content in my user space sandbox prior to deletion at User:Montanabw/Alanna Shaikh if anyone wants to work on it. I may not have a lot of time myself, but several people !voted "keep" and some of the "delete" !votes expressed some sympathy, so here it is. Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 15 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alanna_Shaikh&oldid=1089512525"