Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariya Mahmoud Bunkure

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. While the nomination is in good faith, I do not see where NPOL makes a distinction between elected and appointed officials, and therefore the argument that this individual meets NPOL has not been refuted. We can only apply the policy as written, and in this case, written policy is clear. If we want NPOL to distinguish between appointed and elected officials, I would encourage the formulation of an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Mahmoud Bunkure[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability exist,per WP:NEXIST, also there are several articles for commissioners at state level for USA, of whom the articles possessed only two to three references and they are left without deletion, , it only provide two to four references, see this [1] and this [2] also here are several articles for commissioners at state level [3].- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the difference is between elected and appointed. NPOL, if you read the entire context, deals with elected officials. Historically, appointed officials don't automatically qualify for NPOL, and should meet GNG. I can't find any similar articles on US officials at this level who are appointed, rather than elected. And if NPOL doesn't exist, there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If your appointment constitutes being a cabinet member at a level such as a state of India, Nigeria or the United States of America, or Mexico or Brazil, than you are in fact default notable by virtue of that appointment. That is why we have an article on Keith N. Hamilton. Even if I only actually learned about him because of his activities as a writer. Even back in 2011 when I created the article on Hamilton I was unconvinced he was a notable writer, in the ensuing years I have come to see we have a higher threshold for writer notability than I did then, plus in 2011 it was possible to think his publication of his book would lead to broader notice. As best I can tell it has not, it was a flash in the pan moment. Still his role as a member of the state cabinet was high enough to pass NPOL.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the US, if you are in a state level cabinet position you will be considered notable. We have for example an article on A. C. Nelson who was comissioner of education for Utah from 1904 until his death. I believe this was an appointed position. The article relies heavily on the biogrpahy of his grandson, which starts off with indepth coverage of ancestry. It also relies on a 1904 New York Times article, incidental to Nelson testifying before a very famous US senate inquiry. What exact positions at a state level are notable has never been fully determined, but I can see education comissioners, whether elected or appointed being considered such. In Parliamentary systems like Canada, all the provincial level ministers will be notable because they will all be elected. So in some cases saying appointment does not make one notable will make less people notable under non-parliamentary systems. On the other hand, I would hold that most members of state wide elected boards are not notable. Here in Michigan I have held that being on the state board of education does not make one notable, nor on one of the three state wide elected university boards (which I think each have their own title for members). I would think the one head of education however they get into that position is more notable than a person who is part of a 6 member board, even if the head is appointed and the board elected. Sort of like how James Craig as Detroit police chief is notable, and holds that position by appointment by the mayor (OK, he was actually appointed by the emergency manager during the bankruptcy, but at any point after Jan. 1, 2015 Duggan could have removed him, but has not), while the six elected members of the board of police comissioners are not notable. Similarly I can see cases where a city manager might be notable but the elected figure head mayor would not be. Also I suspect more school superintendents are notable than school board members, although the former are almost always appointed and the later almost always elected. To be clear in the last case of the 10,000 or so public schools superintendants in the US at present, if 7 of them are actually notable I would be shocked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, hi, and thanks for your input. I wish I could find AfD's which dealt with this. In doing research on this, I first checked out the members of the state cabinet here in AZ. Only one of them who was not elected had an article (Ted Vogt), and they met NPOL because prior to serving in the cabinet, they served in the state legislature. Then I thought to myself, there aren't that many folks active in the Arizona project, so I picked a more active state, NY. The same thing applied, not a single appointed official had an article. Regarding A.C. Nelson, all members of the Utah school board, including the commissioner are elected. If you look on Google Books for Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Utah, and then search for Nelson, on page 64 it states that he was elected in November 1900 (the WP article is wrong, since he didn't take office until 1901). WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level..." (emphasis mine). When the term "usually" is used, that usually means (see what I did there? ) that GNG should be met. The "Elected and appointed verbiage was added by an editor, without discussion on the talk page on March 12, 2011, and has remained unchallenged since then. WP:NPOL does not categorically state whether or not to include appointed officials, only stating that they "held" the office, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." However, the following sentence does indicate that this applies to elected officials, "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", since it doesn't state people who have been elected or appointed but not...I think, however, that this is a discussion to be had over at the notability page. Do you mind if I cut and paste your comments there? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" is a perfectly normal English word, which means "usually", not "usually not", just the same as "presume" does not mean "presume the opposite". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Onel5969. JPL does raise a good point but honestly if we are to follow what was outlined in WP:NPOL, then this article's subject doesn’t satisfy NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the arguments above. Kolma8 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOL, which makes no distinction between elected legislators and appointed government ministers, as a senior member of a state government. Quite why anyone should say this is a deletion candidate is totally beyond me. I'm trying very hard, but find it difficult to put it down to anything other than a bias against African politicians, as the equivalent from Europe or North America would come nowhere near even being considered for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Cabinet minister in a State Government she's very, very clearly notable underWP:NPOL. If this were a European politician of a similar standing this matter wouldn't be up for question at all. --Vitalis196 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2021 (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.