Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Moon

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. Per the sources provided, which were not convincingly refuted. Also, the page being poorly written is not an issue for AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Moon

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

I still confirm my PROD because there's no inherited notability from the BBC because of the campaign and thus there's still nothing for genuine independent notability and substance. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id is an example of this. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in the Daily Nation is adequate. Note, by the way, that this is also the name of Buzz Aldrin's mother and so this should certainly be a blue link. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

keep sources pass
WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Referencing a few promotional pieces hardly amount to "Significant coverage" to establish encyclopaedic notability. Lame Name (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tagishsimon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is under development and is now supported by valid additional sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one here has actually considered policy WP:NOT which explicitly says We Are Not LinkedIn and that:s exactly why this article exists, as a personal job listing, and hence is against policy. Comments such as "But improve it" or "Sources exist" still mean nothing if policy is involved and simply because there's attention from anything or anyone is not an inheritance of notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, can you please state how this article is a personal job listing? Are you purposefully ignoring the sources brought to this AfD? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough to pass GNG and there is also a source from the US Government here, though it's largely an interview. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm improving the article and have found more sources, including The Star Kenya. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets
available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. receiving a grant from USAID for small project is not reason for notability, no matter how much of a story is made of it. The GNG has to be read with judgment, that there has to be something to be notable for , before we can concern ourselves wwith whether there is enough press about it. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The grant is only part of her story. She is notable for coming up with an innovative agribusiness in Kenya, which has already changed the agriculture landscape (see the 2016 article) and she is covered significantly over time in the news in various RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have established in the past, regardless of gender or country, that these are not independently notable regardless of publication (because that itself would violate our established policies), so this AfD shouldn't become unnecessarily political. If we start compromising with such policy, we're damned. As it is, the sources themselves are noticeably interviews so it's damning for us to accept them simply because "but they're known news publications!", regardless. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, SwisterTwister. This is not political, it's about policy and doing due-diligence when you are participating in an AfD. The subject of this article has enough RS over time to pass GNG. Your assertion that the the "sources themselves are noticeably interviews" is false and you might want to go back through the sources. I'll go ahead and describe the sources for anyone else reading.

Daily Nation 2014, not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon.
Daily Nation 2014, not an interview and most of the article is devoted to her.
Daily Nation 2016, a portion of the article is about Moon and it is not an interview.
The Star 2016, not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon and her business.

Business Daily 2016 not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon and her company.

Daily Nation 2016 This one is an interview, but the lede of the article is not.

Let's go through the web pages.

InfoDev 2014 This is a blog supported by World Bank Group and is not an interview.
Global Entrepreneurship Summit Moon is profiled on this page and this is not an interview.
Feed the Future is not independent of Moon and is an interview.

LACAfrica, this is a profile about Moon and not an interview.

How We Made It In Africa 2014, this is a blog which discusses Moon and her work and is not an interview, though it quotes her extensively.

From these sources, you can see that of 10, only 2 are full interviews with one article having a lot of quotes. I am dismayed to see a Wikipedian misrepresenting facts when arguing in an AfD. I have shown that there are 5 reliable news sources which are independent of the subject and are non-trivial mentions. The Web sites are not all independent, but some are reliable and can be used to verify facts.

WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I have shown this above. Please do engage with the facts of the discussion, not with vague insinuations that I am making this "political." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP The Marion Moon article easily passes
General notability guidelines with the media finding her significantly interesting to write about repeatedly over the years. There is a genre that attracts people who find it interesting to read and write about women who are working in innovative STEM positions in developing countries. This is part of a larger genre that researches, investigates, and writes about gender issues. The bottomline is that the reliable sources find Moon "worthy of notice" and we therefor we should keep the article. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:24, 17 December 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.