Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nia Faith Betty

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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Faith Betty[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Why is this 20 year old notable? The coverage of her isn't there. The article and sources are mostly on the Révolutionnaire clothing company. The company does not have a depth of sources. It is promotional. Mvqr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Roots. She has basically only done one thing: set up Révolutionnaire. This seems to be distributed by Roots, so that is the logical target. If she does something else notable in the coming years, an article may be warranted. At the moment this is a single accomplishment that does not merit an article, as the coverage is not sustained enough. --- Possibly ☎ 18:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Révolutionnaire is not distributed by Roots. Roots carries the collection just as Nordstrom carries Calvin Klein items. Merging Calvin Klein to Nordstrom wouldn't make sense just because they are a distributor. She has been an inspiration to members of the Black community both on the activism and fashion side. To merge her into a subheading of a White owned brand would likely diminish the impact that she has made as a young Black woman who has founded a tech platform and leading apparel brand for people of color in Canada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What helped shift my !vote is that the Roots source linked above by Possibly says "Révolutionnaire by Roots", so it does not appear to be the same as a department store carrying a brand item, and the social network appears to be closely linked to the branding, e.g. the same link states, "Inspired by their impact within the dance industry and passion for social change, Nia, and her sister and co-founder, Justice, made it their mission to build Révolutionnaire into a platform to address a range of social justice issues", continues promoting the platform, and links to the Révolutionnaire About page, which is clearly promoting the clothing along with the network. The network itself is soliciting email addresses. Based on the current available sources, merging seems like an appropriate alternative to deletion for now, subject to the usual caveats. Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I joined the network recently, I recommend you check it out because it isn't about email addresses, it is an actual network about change making. I met someone on there last night who is helping me with my project to feed the homeless in LA. Aside from the article the platform is actually really good :). As for the clothing, the sources state that she launched the apparel line in 2019. The Roots collaboration launched in 2021, the brand was not created by Roots. The partnership is a collaboration hence the use of the word "by" some brands also use "x" as a substitute for "by" hope this helps clarify things. This is all through my research on Google and easy to find information from their interviews.EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the editor above said, she is a separate entity from Roots. After reading the articles, it is clear that she does have some weight in the activism world as well as in Fashion. WWD is like the fashion bible. I agree that merging with Roots would be the wrong decision, it makes her entire entity a footnote of Roots rather than recognizing her experiences and what she has created in fashion and activism. At the end of the day, she has to be notable to be featured in publications like Forbes and Essence. I was on the fence but after reading the above, I recognize that it would be insensitive to merge the page of a Black female activist with a brand that she worked with twice rather than recognizing her own accomplishments that the sources detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha2397 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Sasha2397 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She's done more than just one thing - she created a whole social network for social change , I came across the Forbes article and learned about her EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, [1] 4 hits on google. Article is overly promotional of the clothing brand and noted contribution history of the article creator. This is a series of minor changes to articles and then bam a new article created. Whilst I wouldn't want to discourage a newbie, this seems a suspicious editing pattern for me. WCMemail 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJumping in here as the article creator, this was my first article and I was really excited to start working on wikipedia. I'm working on my second article right now. It seems strange to delete someone's article because the author is new to the platform. How can anyone new get involved if anything we try to create is deleted because we are new to wiki? Genuinely asking because I want to get more involved in wiki but if everything I create gets deleted because I am just starting out how will I be able to become actively involved?EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it's deleted because you're a newbie but it's pretty unusual for a new editor to be creating articles straight away when their edits are in single figures. That rather implies you are more familiar with wikipedia and this may not be your only account, editors may only have one account to edit with. Given that the article was somewhat promotional in nature, do you have a connection that may perhaps violate our WP:COI policies? WCMemail 06:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any connection with her and haven't met her but I read the Forbes article as part of a school assignment and googled her and found all of this information and recognized that she is someone who is notable, doing great work and has been featured in a lot of media and wondered why she didnt have a wiki page. EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It's thin to the sources, however the ones available are not the best, but it all builds up. There are a few more different things online, I am sure there is more to come. Govvy (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I am not sure what the debate is. I've taken the time to research this young lady and she is absolutely exceptional. This company Revolutionnare was founded by this young lady. It involves a private social network for individuals seeking to do good in their community and internationally. She has created a wealth of information inside this network. Information and action guides involving the very important issue around racial equality, criminal justice reform, environment, homelessness and others. She's an advocate for Mental Health - another very important area considering the developments internationally over these past two years and the resulting mental health issues. That to me is note-worthy. The fact that this young lady also founded a clothing company for diverse skin tones that are sold all over the world, while still, a teenager is also noteworthy. She has empowered women such as myself who come from diverse backgrounds to feel proud and easily access clothing for my daughter's dance. The fact that she then partnered with the largest clothing brand in Canada to expand her clothing line is noteworthy. Roots has never partnered with a teen-aged designer. She's made history. The fact that Roots recognized the importance of her message and decided to expand the collection speaks volumes. I think individuals need to research, read and review before commenting. She's an inspiration and definitely worthy of having a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaSanchez416 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC) — CarlaSanchez416 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I have struck through a comment above, which was made by a CU-confirmed sock of the article's author. Both accounts are now blocked. No comment on the article, I haven't looked at it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment for any closer, SPI report here. WCMemail 08:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Experienced editors have suggested Keep, Merge and Delete with no option having a clear upper hand. More discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article looks fine to me on the notability front. Essence, Toronto Star, CTV, and WWD are reliable. There are some occasions where the company and the person are synonymous when it comes to coverage though admittedly I’m not always a fan of that either. Google hits is not a valid deletion rationale, so I disagree with Wee Curry Monster there. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The article can be improved, promotional content can be removed to end the confusion that whether it's about the person or her company. Because currently most of the content is about her company. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of socks here. I would suggest a procedural close soon. – The Grid (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:05, 12 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nia_Faith_Betty&oldid=1056140930"