Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman

This individual started and organized a worldwide movement during what will become a pivitol moment in history. They deserve a Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.170.161 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Gifty Opoku-Agyeman Stats)

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

• Delete. Seconded concerns about self promotion. This individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and individuals associated with the article's subject are actively reverting good faith edits flagging the article for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeferino (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Geeferino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Article appears to be written by the subject, who is not a public figure. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for self promotion Economist4738 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Economist 4738— Economist4738 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. Point of fact, article was not written or requested by the subject, see here. Have not assessed the sourcing or potential sourcing yet but will comment with a vote later. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Tone and content issues can, as always, be solved by editing. As I read it (I cannot access WSJ and NYT sources as I don't subscribe) there are more than enough independent, reliable sources which cover the subject to allow for notability. See st. louis fed interview, UMBC profile, ms magazine (which covers her org but also gives details about her), another interview, and this profile. The planet money interview (from NPR) may also count but I didn't listen to it. I see more than enough sourcing to allow for a short bio of a subject. Upsetting to me that this was taken to AfD within 24 hours of creation and I think the nominator should reflect on why they chose not to use BLPprod or simple editing to resolve the issues. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I was the original article creator (technically changed redirect page to standalone page) and can confirm that I am not the subject and have no personal or professional relationship to the subject. I had never had any type of contact with the subject until yesterday when I began creating the article and contacted the individual to ask if she could upload a free-use image as I couldn't find one online. I thought the subject met notability requirements because of the existence of significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources and was extremely careful to cite every statement made. I also noted that several existing wikipedia pages had referenced her name so that supported my decision to make the standalone page. I tried my best to make a well-sourced article and I believe that it belongs here. Yul B. Allwright (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The evidence on twitter at https://twitter.com/123_christina/status/1268930659151642634 is that this page was NOT written by the subject, but by an unrelated person.

  Yes, the subject is young, has no PhD, and does not meet the notability critera of WP:PROF. HOWEVER, she is notable under the WP:BASIC criteria. I am a professional (PhD, published) economist who has never met her, but I have been hearing a great deal from very distinguished economists about her efforts to improve opportunities for young Black women in our field. She has been interviewed by the St. Louis Fed as part of their series on Women in Economics here https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics/opoku-agyeman-and-traore If you look at the rest of that series (https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics), most of the people they have interviewed are clearly notable in the Wikipedia sense. By Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, selection for this very substantial interview by this independent source contributes substantially to establishing notability.

  If she were only famous for her work creating The Sadie Collective, the WP:ONEEVENT critera might apply to this subject. However, now the subject has also received a great deal of media attention for organizing Black Birder's Week, such as https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/black-birders-week-black-in-stem-christian-cooper-scn-trnd/index.html. Thus, I believe WP:ONEEVENT no longer applies and she is notable under WP:BASIC.--EAWH (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Keep" well referenced and agree with EAWH she is notable for her work highlighting black academics to a huge audience her notability goes far further than her position in academia as the cited references show. 2A02:C7D:6448:7E00:915F:7122:2435:2E7D (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC) nejaby (not logged in on phone)

• Delete. It seems that the subject explicitly facilitated their Twitter followers to make an article for them, see here. Also, the use of hashtag #MyPriceJustWentUp by the subject only further adds to the concerns of self-promotion. On a somewhat related note, the individual in question clearly does not meet the general notability guidelines, despite the efforts of individuals associated the the subject (see here) to revert any good faiths edits flagging the article for further review. The subject is not an academic economist and has 0 (zero) peer-reviewed publications. Co-organizing 1 (one) student conference, co-authoring 1 (one) op-ed, and promoting a hashtag on Twitter do not warrant subject's article. --HRMbruh (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)— HRMbruh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject satisfies WP:BASIC, with independent coverage of the Sadie Collective or Black Birders Week from Scientific American, The New York Times, The Smithsonian, NPR, and CNN. I work in an unrelated scientific field, but there's plenty talk accross disciplines. I have no relation to the subject. Please review the edit history for any users suggesting deletion, including Geeferino, Economist4738, and HRMbruh. We may need to protect the article against vandalism. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. None of us are vandalizing the article, we are trying to make it clear that this person is self-promoting.

Here is a tweet by the subject asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her. She has no peer reviewed articles. She is not an academic. She is currently a research assistant who misrepresents herself to appear more significant, and this is part of that push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment You are misrepresenting the tweet and the author. Her actual words were "I have always wanted to 1) get a Wikipedia page and 2) be interviewed by 60 minutes. I've practiced (2) more times than I am willing to admit lol." That is not "asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her", it's just a statement of ambition. The fact that somebody saw that tweet and decided to make half of it happen still doesn't make it a request. AFAIK nobody is arguing that it's her publications that make her relevant, so I'm not sure why you bring it up - this just seems like gratuitous belittlement of the subject. --Calair (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This appears to be one in a series of articles being promulgated purely for self-promotion by an insular group of young academics who are popular on Twitter. Wikipedia is not a place to boost your friends' signals and pat yourself on the back for creating a page for them. Additional examples can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earyn_McGee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corina_Newsome (note the presence of common editors appearing on the histories of these pages such as Gthh, Hyperik, and Yul_B._Allwright.) Geeferino (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Heya, not sure what you're trying to accuse(?) me of, but I noticed some "liked by" tweets in my feed about some new Wikipedia articles - check my edit history, I just clean up and expand Wikipedia articles related to plants, animals, and articles associated with plants and animals, like herpetologists, ornithologists, etc. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This is a well-referenced article and clearly satisfies WP:BASIC. Opoku-Agyeman's establishment of Black Birders Week alone warrants notability which has been covered in many news outlets including CNN and Smithsonian, among others. As others have already stated, this article was not self-created and is properly reporting on a notable figure. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: EAWH, Kslays, Jayzlimno, note that WP:BASIC establishes necessary rather than sufficient criteria for a Wikipedia article. Is the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC in your opinion? Also, I'm a little bit concerned about the obvious meatputtetry in this AfD discussion. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bender235, WP:BASIC states People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. (the "additional criteria below" referring to ANYBIO and ACADEMIC) Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Bender235, do me a favor and don't edit my posts. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't remember doing that. Could you point me to the relevant diff? --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm so sorry. it was not you. it was another user. See here. Tho while I have you GNG is both necessary and sufficient for notability, FYI. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Don't worry about the mistaken identity. But about WP:BASIC, I wasn't aware that this is how we interpret it. After all, what do we have the "additional criteria" for then? --bender235 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• GNG covers everything as sort of a catch all if a subject doesn't meet a subject specific guideline. The subject specific guidelines are there as heuristics for stuff that is probably notable even if sourcing can't be found immediately. So for instance a football player who plays for a professional league will meet WP:FOOTY even if they don't meet the GNG (ie we can't find 3-5 sources covering the subject in detail) because it is likely that the sources are out there or that they will be soon enough. So if someone meets WP:ACADEMIC we don't need them to meet the GNG because we assume that a concerted enough search will find that they do. I hope that makes sense. I wish GNG were clearer about it and that it were policy but I've fought both of those fights for a long time before and don't care to repeat them. :) Protonk (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment bender235 I'm more concerned with the users nominating to delete as their accounts have only been created in the last 2 days and their only edits are for support to delete this article. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I made this account to flag the article for review when I saw it starting to circulate among Twitter circles I follow in the interest of not getting doxxed by leaving my IP visible. That doesn't change the validity of the points being raised here. Perhaps Black Birders Week is deserving of its own article given the amount of coverage it received, but I strongly disagree that the subject of this article does. Geeferino (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am a Wikipedian who had to make a new account to start the delete discussion because associating this delete discussion with my real professional account would lead me to severe harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist4738 (talk • contribs)

Comment bender235, thanks for your attention to this article. Yes, the meatpuppetry is a serious concern. That's what I was referring to with respect to the edit history of Geeferino, Economist4738, HRMbruh, and several IP edits. It may be helpful to review the long edit histories for users in support of keeping the article. Of course, the primary consideration should be the merits of the article itself according to WP:BASIC criteria (It's not a WP:Vote). -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with EAWH. Subject’s work, thought leadership, and impact are confirmed by multiple independent and credible secondary sources that meet Wikipedia’s criteria for such sources. In context, subject’s tweets are as easily read as self-deprecating and humorous. The potential for a page on Wikipedia to boost one’s professional credibility and opportunities is well-understood. To Bender235's reference to WP:ANYBIO, note that it states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Subject cannot held responsible by association for the actions of individuals associated with the subject. Black Birders Week, as noted in the cited CNN coverage, is a timely and comprehensively organized and programmed “series of events and activities designed to highlight Black scientists, scholars and everyday nature lovers. While spreading their joy and knowledge, the countless people involved in the movement are also raising visibility of Black achievement at a painfully critical time.” To the allegation of meatpuppetry, I'm a longtime if infrequent Wikipedia editor. Ejgertz (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Among the many other outlets already mentionend her involvement in the initiation of Black Birders Week has also been covered in an interview in Science [1] -- Wurstendbinder (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. The op-ed she wrote for the New York Times was followed up with some good sources such as The Economist but especially this NPR interview and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Combine that with this Gen Z piece from the Star Tribune and all of the coverage of her involvement with Black Birders Week (The Verge, CNN, NY Post) and you have more than enough sourcing for WP:BASIC. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Gthh can be seen on Twitter promoting the Corina Newsome (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) and Earyn McGee articles (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) referenced earlier in an effort to build her own social media clout. Once again, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your friends or yourself in the name of "increasing representation of diverse scientists" Geeferino (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Furthermore, meatpuppets inserting themselves into this discussion can clearly be observed being sourced from the article subject's own Twitter page here: https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269404604040699904 Geeferino (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bruh, your ONLY edits are to this topic. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't feel like being doxxed by rabid social justice warriors because I oppose a 24 year old who started a Twitter hashtag having their own Wikipedia article. Geeferino (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• After taking a closer look, I'd have to say delete. Even if we only go by WP:BASIC (which I wouldn't recommend, since the article makes the claim of portraying an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC should be the relevant guideline), but even if we do that, I don't see how the article clears the "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" bar set by WP:BASIC. The only relevant sources (i.e., not self-published work, or alumni newsletter) are this NY Times article and this WSJ article, both of which only mention the subject in passing. The CNN coverage mentioned by Ejgertz may justify the existence of the Black Birders Week article, but not the one currently under debate. Most of the biographic information in this article seems to actually come from blog posts, almost none of it is confirmed in WP:RS. --bender235 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)