Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loubna Bouarfa

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. Lots of passing mentions and non-independent items, but not enough independent,

WP:BIO standards. RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Loubna Bouarfa

[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)

Delete Sources are all weak, passing mentions, does not qualify for notability under
WP:BIOSliu.3110 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 13:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete

Source 1 is a Forbes profile listing nothing more than a funding announcement for Bouarfa's company, her degree of education, and how her company can be useful. Not in-depth, nor is there any analysis.

Source 2 is a list of alumni at her university, not really a source at all.

Source 3 links to her research in University, which is not notable press coverage

Source 4 is a scientific paper she co-authored, again no notable press coverage

Source 5 is her own company's website

Source 6 is simply regurgitating Bouarfa's own quotes, there is no significant input on the part of the author

Source 7 is the same Forbes profile listing again

Source 8 is a passing mention about Bouarfa's decision to not have her company in London

Source 9 only lists Bouarfa as one of many members of an AI 'group'

Source 10 doesn't even immediately lead to a page with any reference to Bouarfa, though a bit of digging shows this page is simply an awards list page with no serious mention of any one candidate

Source 11 just leads to the same initial Forbes profile, which is again nothing notable in terms of coverage

No source confers notable, independent coverage. Sliu.3110 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some news related to the article topic [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Charmk (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every business person who gets a short profile in Forbes is notable. Nothing less than that extreme level of barrel scrapping would make Bouarfa notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now contains references to multiple awards that could support relevance (being among Top 50 Women in Technology worldwide may qualify):
- MIT Technology as an Innovator under 35.
- Forbes Top 50 Women in Technology.
So these may indicate noteability. --hroest 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response In the basic criteria of
WP:BIO
, it is stated that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources... independent of the subject." Taking a look at the new sources added (I will look at the ones accessed in July 2019):

new electronics is a very long article, but there is no original analysis by the news source/author. Much of the content is quotes from Bouarfa herself.

contract pharma has a whole article written mostly about AI, and a little bit about Bouarfa's company okra. The extent of coverage of Bouarfa is a profile at the bottom of the page, which merely lists a few accomplishments and provides no insight about Bouarfa.

medical advice network is again sourced directly from Bouarfa, with practically no independent insight/analysis

sifted is also very uninformative about Bouarfa herself and covers much of the same content as we have seen before, which is very basic and essentially "regurgitates" information about her funding, her company, and some awards

business weekly article doesn't speak much about Bouarfa either, and mentions her company more

startup europe awards is written by the team/company itself, so it doesn't qualify for any notability. It can still be used for supporting information, however.

In summation, the sources provided either don't cover her significantly (eg top 50 awards, etc.), are not sufficiently independent (with most of the content being direct quotes of her), or focus on other topics such as her company Okra, with Bouarfa being only mentioned in passing. To address the point of awards, firstly the MIT innovators award is published by MIT Technology Review magazine, which is independent of the university, so it is wholly dishonest to link to MIT alongside the awards page. The award itself could be significant, but is clearly not enough on its own to establish notability. The Forbes awards only very briefly discuss the winners, and it appears to be user submitted content as well. Sliu.3110 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sources too weak for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2019 (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.