Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Alemika

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Alemika[edit]

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

Dos not meet the criteria for ~~WP:NPROF~~ WP:PROF and does not meet the GNG criteria. The only substantiated claim being the first female la professor from a particular state in Nigeria. The claim that she is a philanthropist are not backed up by the sources. The sources include 1 puff piece in a Nigerian magazine and 1 interview written in a Nigerien newspaper rewritten in a blog which was then copied word for word into another newspaper. And 1 source solely about her husband. Domdeparis (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As it stands, it's highly promotional. I'm not sure how significant being a female "professor" (I'm assuming the American meaning) is in the context of Nigeria. Deb (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not a non-profit organization, she is a person. NPROF is an essay, not policy. If you were meaning PROF, there are no claims in the article that she meets ACADEMIC. I have no stake in the article, simply ran across a poorly written, article and tried to improve it. Never even looked at the lede, which rather than nominate it for deletion is easily corrected by an edit. I am in Mexico and as a general rule have *very* limited sources to Africa. However, I can see that she has been a speaker at numerous global conferences Uganda, Washington, D.C., The Netherlands, Chile, so clearly her impact is not just regional. All of the topics she has presented at these various conferences are on the rights of women and children. As there is evidence that she has participated in the global discussion of human rights, perhaps the article should be given time to develop. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My bad concerning the NPORF it should have been PROF. The article presents the subject as an academic and not as a human rights activist/speaker. The article states that she is an educator and talks about her being the first professor of law from a certain region. I may be being a little dense but for me educator is a synonym for teacher or academic teacher and as such, if this is the main claim to notability, she should meet ACADEMIC. The fact that she has participated in conference suggests that she has notability but there is no in-depth coverage of these activities. The article needs to be rewritten to highlight her work as a human right's speaker with in depth coverage. IMHO as it stands it is a candidate for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So then rewrite it, look for sourcing, etc. You state that there is no in-depth coverage, I am unwilling to go that far. There is evidence that she has participated globally. It may well be that there is coverage, I simply do not have access due to my location. Deletion does not improve the encyclopedia, simply diminishes the coverage and does not allow someone who might have access to sourcing to improve the article. As for limiting her life to one facet of it, i.e. Academic, it denies the fact that her impact is not necessarily as a scholar. I see no evidence of academic notability, but there are many clues that she is a speaker and mentor. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a subject that interests me particularly and even if strangely in Mexico it is difficult to access on line sources about Africa I probably have no more access than you do. As it says in the WP:New Pages Patrol New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. I have rewritten, translated and added references to pages that I have reviewed and/or tagged because the subject interests me. I originally tagged this page with a notability tag which another editor removed but as the article had not been modified and I maintain that as written the article does not present the person as being particularly notable and the sources that you have supplied are not in-depth coverage of her work as a human rights activist as per the categorisation that you added. Domdeparis (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that. The wording is promotional and it comes very close to a G11. Deb (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no pass of WP:Prof. Can notability be found in WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 14 January 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.