Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Stacy Oriuwa

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Stacy Oriuwa

[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The notability claim here is of the "first member of [insert underrepresented group here] to do a not otherwise notable thing" variety -- being valedictorian of one's graduating class at medical school is not a notability claim in and of itself, so being a member of one or more underrepresented groups doesn't automatically make her a special case of greater international notability than other medical school graduates all by itself -- and the referencing here consists mainly of sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs, glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that aren't about her, sources that tangentially verify stray facts about other things without containing the words "Chika" or "Oriuwa" at all in conjunction with them, and/or Q&A interviews or pieces of her own bylined writing in which she's talking about herself or other things in the first person. There are only two sources here which actually represent real, notability-supporting third party coverage about her in real media independent of herself, but they're both from local media in the individual city where the university she graduated from is located -- which means that her coverage doesn't meet the geographic range or volume tests needed to establish her as markedly more notable than other university valedictorians. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably more and wider media coverage than just a couple of hits in Toronto's own local media: if she had been the first black woman in the world to ever be a valedictorian at all, then there might be a case for a Wikipedia article, but not if she can only claim to have been the first black woman valedictorian at one specific school. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and improve) per WP:GNG. She's famous for more than being valedictorian of her medical class (which did get a lot of press coverage in 2020). There's earlier coverage of her poetry, and she has recently been all over the Canadian press because she's the model for a new Barbie doll.[1][2] Furthermore, to the nom's claim that coverage lacks sufficient geographical diversity (which is not policy based, afaik), Bearcat apparently missed the international coverage of her graduation in their WP:BEFORE.[3][4][5] pburka (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, we do have a rule that a tiny smattering of purely local coverage is not necessarily enough to get a person into Wikipedia all by itself, if it's covering a person in not-inherently-notable contexts that wouldn't ordinarily have passed any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria. (For example, a handful of hits in their local newspaper is not enough to get a smalltown municipal councillor or mayor, a local restaurant or boutique, or an aspiring child actress or singer, over GNG in lieu of having to accomplish anything that would pass NPOL or NACTOR or NMUSIC or NCORP.)
Secondly, where is there earlier coverage of her poetry, considering that as written the content about her poetry is referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence whatsoever of any notability-building media coverage that would have gotten her over NAUTHOR on that basis? It's not enough to just say that media coverage of her poetry exists, if no media coverage of her poetry has been shown.
Thirdly, there's no indication that either Legit or Fab Woman are reliable or notability-building sources — and while the Jamaica Gleaner is a better one in theory, it's weakened in this case by the fact that the link you provided includes a "Thank you Marina Jimenez, global media relations strategist, University of Toronto, for facilitating the interview." coda, thus indicating that it wasn't organic coverage created independently of a directly-affiliated PR agent.
So no, none of that is compelling evidence of greater notability than the article demonstrates in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the applicable rule. pburka (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 25 August 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/Chika_Stacy_Oriuwa&oldid=1041647123"