Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman

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. Closing as keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place.

This AfD has received significant attention, well above and beyond normal, due to the AfD being shared on social media. Several participants on both sides of the discussion appear to have come to Wikipedia solely for this AfD and, as such, were unfamiliar with how the process works and made arguments that were based on preference rather than policy (the governing policy being notability).

The overwhelming majority of participants that based their arguments on relevant policy came to the conclusion that the subject of the article meets WP:BASIC. There was some concern that she is not independently notable of The Sadie Collective (i.e. WP:BLP1E), and that the coverage was not substantially focused on her, however the majority of participants felt that WP:BASIC was met.

I have posted at WP:AN for a review of this closure. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman[edit]

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

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)
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what "the presence of common editors" is meant to indicate beyond the fact that these are similar articles, and that somebody interested in one is likely to be interested in others. You could undoubtedly find a bunch of "common editors" on articles about white naturalists, or stamp collecting, or classical history, or Pokemon - so what? --Calair (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The point is that these articles were written by people who immediately went on Twitter and promoted them to the followers of the article subjects, seemingly for little reason other than virtue signal themselves as "allies" to a community of black scientists on Twitter. Supporting evidence has already been provided in other comments I've left on this page. Geeferino (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Bender235, do me a favor and don't edit my posts. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember doing that. Could you point me to the relevant diff? --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree, let us focus on the merits of the article and the subject of the article itself. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Bruh, your ONLY edits are to this topic. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Then I don't feel compelled to care about your imaginary other account. I wonder if I search EMJR if I'll see anything about this page. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I share Geeferino's concern about being doxxed by subject's twitter mob. I am forth year PhD student in Economics at US university and I am sick and tired of seeing undergraduate research assistants and early-career academics using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I am long-term, albeit infrequent Wikipedia contributor, but I had to create a new account to participate in this delete discussion. As several people noted above, the subject in question (1) is not an academic economist, (2) is not a graduate student, and (3) have zero peer-reviewed publications. I welcome the desire to celebrate subjects activism and her social media activity, which justifies the existence of the Black Birders Week article, but not their personal article. Most information in the article under debate comes from subject's Twitter account, blog posts here and there, etc. The "Early life and education" and "Career" sections paint a fictitious picture of subject's contribution to the field of Economics, which is exactly none so far. --HRMbruh (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
No one gets to decide that some people can meet WP:BASIC while others have to meet a stricter standard. If a subject meets WP:BASIC, they're notable. Also your examples completely ignore coverage in NPR and Star Tribune. gobonobo + c 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the Star Tribune coverage, thanks. But the question of whether we should apply WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC raises an interesting point: why is the subject portrayed as an academic, instead of an activist (which primarily seems to be her claim to fame)? I'm talking about the {{Infobox Academic}}, the categorization in Category:Ghanaian women economists, the detailed listings of academic fellowships (none of which verified, neither in the NYT, WSJ, or Star Tribune articles), etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but someone with the intention to get a graduate degree shouldn't be labelled an academic prematurely. --bender235 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a totally valid topic of discussion for the article's talk page. It might even be relevant here if the sole claim to notability was based on WP:ACADEMIC. But since that isn't the case, arguments that "she's not an academic" really don't have anything to do with passing GNG or BASIC and should be discounted by the closing admin. It doesn't matter what someone's claim to fame is as long as there are reliable sources with significant coverage. gobonobo + c 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: it seems we found a common ground then after all. My issue was mostly with the fact that parts of the article are unverified puffery and claims of academic status, when (at best) we are talking about someone intending to get a graduate degree. If the article is rewritten in the mold of other hashtag activist bios, say Isis Anchalee or Ayakha Melithafa, I wouldn't entirely oppose keeping it. --bender235 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty allergic to hagiographies and self-promotion myself. I'm sure we can find a balanced way to approach this biography. Honestly, I'm far more concerned about spontaneous digital lynch mobs targeting black women who've recently appeared in the media. gobonobo + c 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anybody's motivation to participate in this AfD, but it seems the subject herself has directed her followers here, some of which are apparently veteran Wikipedians who should know better. --bender235 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "digital lynch mob" dude. You're just trotting out the identity politics defense, the last resort of someone who has nothing left to say. Has it ever occurred to you that the very reason people are opting for more privacy during this discussion is that some social justice weirdo like you would tar us as racists even though we're nothing of the sort? Geeferino (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best guess - bunch of dudes from EJMR upset that a pre-doc got a Wikipedia article before they did. You should strike your comment. The link you offered does not support your claim. gobonobo + c 02:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: Oh boy, after tweets like this the same chaos has now broken out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee. Days like these are the reason why I never wanted to be an administrator. --bender235 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo:@Geeferino: Based on your conversation we then should approve this article on the basis of WP:Basic Then edits of the pages will be needed to meet the criteria of WP:Academic. I can volunteer myself to look for reliable resources to see if the individual meets the criteria.Flavinista (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • It appears there is some confusion here, primarily with those arguing in favor of deletion, with the notable exception of Bender235. It does not matter the extent to which the author promotes the page, whether there was COI editing involved (which it seems there isn't), "common editors", etc. The purpose and scope of this discussion is whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria, nothing else. Best, Vermont (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one that originally tagged the article as possibly violating WP:NOTPROMO and being too resume-like. Those changes were immediately reverted without justification by the original author of the article. I put the tags back in place and they were deleted again. When I checked later, someone else had flagged the post for deletion and this whole discussion materialized. Geeferino (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do Gobonobo's sources, as well as yours, establish? The relevance of Black Birders Week as a notable Hashtag activism, sure. But none of the academic claims about the subject are mentioned in any of those news reports. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject in question is now explicitly soliciting their twitter followers to meatpuppet this discussion:

https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:401:5800:49D0:7B8B:62F:DBFF (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It might be helpful to semi-protect the article while this discussion is ongoing. User:HRMbruh (contribs) has repeatedly deleted the "AhR ligand aminoflavone..." publication from the article without discussion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be requested here. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Kslays: What kind of discussion do you need? One of the authors of this paper in question is clearly another person, unrelated to the individual in question. The subject under discussion was never affiliated with the Department of Basic Sciences at Loma Linda University Health School of Medicine, as is apparent from journal's page of this article here. The subject is a self-proclaimed "economist" and does not conduct research in cancer treatment. End of discussion. --HRMbruh (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful to note it was the wrong person in the edit summary, especially for a repeated deletion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That publication has barely anything to do with the broader discussion unfolding here. Isn't the argument being put forward by the people saying this article should be kept up that this person is supposed to be considered notable as an activist and economist? A random molecular biology paper with the subject of the article listed as an author does nothing to strengthen the argument that this page isn't being used as a surrogate for a resume/CV. Geeferino (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) GNG is the relevant guideline here, not ACADEMIC; (2) folks here with few contributions who claim to have other accounts need to read WP:SOCK extremely carefully. Wikiacc () 00:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social media brigading is a very real and warranted concern, especially for people who are still active within relevant academic and professional circles. Don't strawman the discussion about the article. Geeferino (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article is a notable public figure. Her co-founding of both The Sadie Collective and Black Birders Week, along with the NY Times contribution, profiles and interviews in NPR, etc., all mentioned above, make the case clear in my view, both in terms of substantive merit and the required number of sources. I have read through much of the discussion above, and believe the basis here is GNG. Mine is not a new account, fwiw. I suggest that this article should be kept, not deleted, in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia. Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the relevant sources (NY Times, WSJ, etc.) talk primarily about the subject, but rather mention her in passing when describing The Sadie Collective, or Black Birders Week, isn't the immediate consequence that now everybody involved in these activist/student projects deserves a Wikipedia article, e.g. The Sadie Collective#Staff? It's a serious question, since the "trivial coverage" clause of WP:BASIC seems to have been rendered moot at this point. --bender235 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts, and the serious question you ask. You are right to ask it. If someone has co-founded not one but two public and widely-known social initiatives, coauthored an opinion piece in the NY Times, and been either interviewed or discussed in national-scale media on several occasions (see Google news search in relation to the present case), I would be comfortable with that being a standard of general notability, thereby deserving a Wikipedia article. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This page is not being 'used as a surrogate for a CV', it is substantive and merits inclusion. AmyFou (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
striking comment from blocked sock-puppet
As opposed to the anonymous dudes from Economics Job Market Rumors who are coordinating to delete articles on Earyn McGee and Corina Newsome? gobonobo + c 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person is a well-known science communicator, CEO of The Sadie Collective, and is often referenced as both a scientist and Black woman. It would be useful for people to be able to reference quality information on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person founded the Sadie Collective- an urgently needed organization challenging the pervasive under-representation of people of color in economics. This alone seems to merit a Wikipedia page, given the importance of the problem (not just to economists, but to the many of us who live with the consequences of academic economics being dominated by a very narrow demographic) and the promise of the Sadie Collective to achieve change. She also came up with Black Birders week, in the wake of the Cooper birder-harassment event. This was a conceptually brilliant, timely, and moving activist idea. I want to know more about the person who came up with this idea and Wikipedia seems the natural place to check for this information. It is absurd to think that if a rising star social activist expresses excitement and pride about having a Wikipedia page, then she doesn't deserve it. Of course she's proud to have a Wikipedia page! That's irrelevant! Readers will benefit from the existence of such a page. Mglymour (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person co-founded the Sadie Collective and is CEO, she is notable under the WP:BASIC criteria. She also came up with and organized BlackBirdersWeek in response to the Cooper bird-harrassment event in NYC, which was an internationally influential social media week that was reported on by noteworthy news such as National Geographic, CNN, and Forbes magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co2ke (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’. Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is a highly respected member of the scientific community. This attack on their page seems to be solely due to them being a person of color. Their page shouldn’t be take down as to allow people to learn about her contributions to her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the main thing that needs to be addressed in this AFD in regards to notability is whether the subject is notable beyond the recent spate of news regarding Black Birders Week. Since that alone would just be a single event type of notability that is not long-lasting. So while we have plenty of articles with a lot of detail and interviews with the subject over the past week, such as this article in The Verge, what I decided to search and focus on was prior to that. And I found plenty, primarily due to their work in founding the Sadie Collective. Here's some examples:

And that was just from a quick first two pages of a Google search for things prior to the last week. I could likely dive much deeper for more. From the Sadie Collective to the Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Conference for Economics and Related Fields, the subject clearly has been involved in making organizations and events that have brought them notability in the press and elsewhere. It seems pretty clear to me that notability is established for the subject, even prior to this week's events. SilverserenC 02:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page meets WP:Basic. Why should it be held to a higher standard than other stub pages? I hear the earlier concerns: this will likely benefit from some editing to remove any non-verifiable sources, but regardless, the subject meets notability. Soulsinsync (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same group of weird overzealous identity politickers have appeared on the discussions for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earyn_McGee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corina_Newsome, egged on by the same circle of social media influencers that have been meatpuppeting this article such as Imogene Cancellare. Twitter is not real life, people. Starting a popular hashtag isn't something that gets commemorated with a Wikipedia article. I merely tagged both of those pages with the same tags I did on this page and stopping thinking about it, and there was a whole race baiting tribunal that took place in the interim between then and now. If you're popular on Twitter, that's great! The mechanisms you need for that dopamine hit are built in. Don't bring it here. Geeferino (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that you're the ones that are meatpuppetting to try and delete this article, for some reason. I think my Keep vote above has very clearly used sources to show the notability of the subject. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, User:Geeferino is a SPA clearly created for the sole purpose of nominated a series of articles.--DarTar (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, you don't *get* to talk about what to bring or not bring "here". Post with your real account if you have one, or spare us the lectures about what you think belongs here. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Creator of one of the most impactful science outreach events in modern history and independently notable to deserve a dedicated article.--DarTar (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. --Kellyjeanne9 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator created this AFD in their very first edit, and has since been blocked for sock puppetry. There is no reason for the AFD nominated in the nomination. Shortly afterwards they nominated two other articles for black women. The nomination appears to be in bad faith, and a deliberate act of WP:BIAS. Procedurally there is no choice but ending this discussion asap. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other editors who have expressed opinions in favor of deletion here, namely Bender235, so a speedy keep is not possible. Vermont (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nfitz, procedural comment: speedy keep criteria 1 and 2 are only valid when there have been no good-faith !votes to delete, and I am going to assume good faith that at least one vote has been made in good faith. I don't think criterion 3 applies either since the nominator did provide a rationale in their later delete !vote. Believe me, I speedy-kept two other (apparently vexatious) nominations by this same editor and wanted to SK this, but I don't think any SK criteria are valid. creffett (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then use WP:IAR - besides, otherwise it's snowing. I don't see a clear position from User:Bender235 - and if they want to ignore the clear racism by a now-banned user in creating this AFD, and still proceed with it, then I feel they should reconsider their position, as it is bringing it into ill repute. Nothing is to be gained by continuing this racist travesty one minute more. There's no prejudice against against future nominations when things are calmer. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to IAR on this (though other admins may choose to), and bender235 pretty clearly is !voting delete right now: After taking a closer look, I'd have to say delete. As for snowing and "when things are calmer" - as far as I can see, both sides of this debate appear to be canvassing, and I fully expect that to happen again next time this gets nominated. Finally, please take a moment to look at WP:CRYRACIST - calling someone racist is a serious accusation and is often misused in discussions to gain an "upper hand." creffett (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Racist travesty"? Boy, this escalated quickly. Seriously, who wrote anything racist here? --bender235 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, the purpose of this page is to facilitate a civil discussion over the notability of the article's subject. We are not here to make allegations of racism or bad-faith actions, ignore the stated opinions of others, or circumvent established and necessary processes to wait until when "things are calmer". Thank you, Vermont (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is fine, until we find out that the person who nominated it, then proceeded to create AFDs the same day for two other black women, and has since been blocked for sock-puppetry. Given the current political situation, there is no doubt that the nominations were racist. Whether the article should be permanently kept is immaterial - supporting racists is fundamentally wrong and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two other AfDs were speedily kept; we can't do that with this AfD because other, legitimate, editors have written comments in favor of deletion. Vermont (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This bio article is not controversial and hurts no third party. There's zero reason to delete it in a rush for political reasons. It is sourced. Its existence is not hurting anything or anyone. Let it exist, WP:Notability can always be revisited in a few months. Mfield (Oi!) 03:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm...not sure if I understand you correctly; are you saying that the subject isn't notable but that there's no harm done by keeping it? Vermont (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all, I am saying that while the notability of the subject may be disputed, apparently by mobilized parties from both sides, article doesn't have any pressing BLP issues etc, so there should be no rush to delete just based on whatever BS is currently occurring with people attempting to delete it. Easier to keep an inoffensive sourced article for a few weeks and delete later than delete thanks to meatpuppets and hope someone will recreate. Mfield (Oi!) 03:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see. Considering only two (at the time of writing) established editors have commented for deletion, it seems unlikely to become an issue. Best, Vermont (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silverseren --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. It meets the WP:BASIC criteria. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 03:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a well-known Black woman in STEM. There are several external press articles that serve as reliable secondary sources and are evidence of her notability. Self-promotion has been referenced in several comments in favor of deletion but there is no evidence that this has occurred. The deletion nomination appears ot be in bad faith and an act of WP:BIAS. Rfairb (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No even a remote pass of WP:Prof. The tendentious contributions from Twitter do not make WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Correct, she doesn't meet WP:PROF, but she's not notable for her academic contributions. She does, however, seem to meet the general notability guideline: there exists significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Vermont (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • PROF is not a notability guideline this article would be aiming for anyways (maybe in the future). See my Keep vote up above for a list of reliable sources specifically about this subject, meeting WP:GNG and WP:BASIC notability requirements and all with sources from prior to this week's events. SilverserenC 03:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extensive secondary sources, for more than ONETHING. Newystats (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep - I was about to close this as "keep" myself, because the handful of "delete" arguments to this point have all either (a) been effectively rebutted as misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy, or (b) reclassified as issues of article content better suited to the article's talk page than a deletion discussion. I do firmly believe, having reviewed the article and this discussion, that the case for keeping the argument is overwhelming. However, in full disclosure, I was notified of this discussion on Twitter, by somebody I don't know. I don't feel their influence has colored my view, but others might. Probably better that an admin who finds this discussion by a more organic process close it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: nope, because the "trivial coverage" clause in WP:BASIC hasn't been addressed yet. As I've mentioned before, none of the relevant sources are primarily about the subject. All they do is mention her in passing as the student organisations and/or activist groups are being described. Also, in the words of Sulfurboy, "any admin worth their salt will see past meat and spa votes" that are only here because the subject sent her 8,000+ Twitter followers our way. --bender235 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: Can you explain how the sources I gave up above are trivial coverage and/or not about the subject in question? Also, considering this AfD (and the other two) were made by a group of SPAs from the EJMR forum, I don't think that means much for this discussion. SilverserenC 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why User:Bender235 continue a discussion from a blocked sock-puppet that appears to be created out of bias? This discussion needs to end asap. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who created this AfD and why, I came here first to fix the missing AfD templates, then to reason my opinion like any other Wikipedian would. Step of your moral high horse for a second, and instead of accusing others of racism ask yourself why you want to quench this discussion at any cost. --bender235 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on User:Bender235, you just said that you don't care that the creation of this AFD was racist? Surely that's a big problem. There's no doubt that there is a lot of racism in that particular country, and it's hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that a newly created sockpuppet just happened to pick articles for three black Americans to try and delete. Sometimes one needs to cry about racism - and one should never support racism, inadvertently or not. This is not the time to be dying on the hill of protecting the rights of racist editors. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving up on WP:GF yet, so no, I do not assume racism being the motivation for this AfD. And I'm not here to "protect a racist editor," but to uphold the Wikipedia standards of notability. And before you ask, I have been holding this stance for a long time. I suggest you pause for a moment and look past the Twitter incited outrage. --bender235 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had this just been a sock-puppet and a black women, then yet, AGF - as unlikely as it would be. But then go and nominate the articles of two other black women for deletion, when the very racist nation that they are from is on the brink of civil war over race issues? At some point, you have to accept that the nomination was racist. Keeping this grossly racist nomination now, doesn't preclude applying WP:NORUSH and examining it in more detail later when people are calmer, and people aren't dying in the streets. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bender235 I am surprised, this doesn't seem to align too well with what you said above. But no matter. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of how the source materials match up with policy. The Wall Street Journal is a major publication, and clearly presents the subject as significant. (Shame about the paywall, but that doesn't diminish its value as a source.) Silverseren's list is valuable as well; I have access to some, but not all, of those sites, and they are substantially to the notability claim. This is not a borderline case. She's notable. There are some open questions about how to cover her, but there is really no legitimate question of whether we can cover her. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what you meant. Okay. But as I said, the WSJ article, just as the NY Times article mentions the subject in passing at most. The sources cited in the existing article for almost all the relevant biographical facts are self-published blogs, alumni newsletters, or interviews. That might serve as WP:RS for verification purposes, but not to establish "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." --bender235 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To be transparent I was made aware of this nomination via twitter however I have been doing Wiki work around the Black Birders Week topic this week. I'm of the opinion that this article meets WP:Basic and should be kept. --Ambrosia10 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am a long-retired wikipedia editor who came over due to the social media hullabaloo. I am part of the economics community. From an economics POV, the subject of the article is not significant subject of an article given that she is an research assistant with no academic standing. The bulk of her activism is concerning the academic economics, which also might be why many of the people advocating deletion, who are most probably economists, feel like she should be judged on her notability based on those of economists. The subject, for now, has little influence in the academic economics community, and thus I am slightly inclined towards deleting her page and redirecting it to the Sadie collective page, but would welcome counterarguments. If the article is kept, the article probably needs some revisions; the part about her elementary school and middle school is quite superfluous. --Ysjzysn (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with this opinion. If the article is kept, it should be made clear that the subject is notable for her hashtag activism, not academic status. Almost none of the listed fellowships and awards are reliable sourced. For instance, the source in this sentence, She currently works at Harvard University as a Research Scholar in Economics, a "non-degree granting post-baccalaureate program that provides mentored research and training for individuals interested in pursuing doctoral studies."[1], doesn't even mention her name. A lot of what's currently in this article needs to be double-checked. --bender235 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Research Scholar Initiative". The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University. Retrieved 2020-06-06.
  • Strong keep: This is just silly. A page nominated with no deletion rationale that trivially meets WP:GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for the nominator, I understood the rational to be WP:SELFPROMO. --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a refuted argument, since we know the article subject didn't make the article. SilverserenC 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the rational was correct. Just that this appeared to be the rational. As a side note, though, WP:SELFPROMO includes "anybody you know," which may or may not include Twitter friends. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi bender235, thank you for the comment. I think you're right that that's probably the rationale we should be organising the discussion around (and, as Silver seren points out, I think it would make the discussion much easier because it doesn't look like that rationale holds up in this case). It would have been very helpful to have this discussion with a clear rationale put forward, and with merge and even redirect being more seriously considered -- notable topics don't necessarily merit their own pages, so why aren't we talking about putting a lot of the content on this page onto a different page instead? I would still vote to keep the page, but I think that's a much more sensible alternative than delete. And while I totally appreciate that this is a good faith disagreement that arbitrarily experienced editors can fall on either side of, it was really surprising to me to hear that there are differences of opinion about WP:BASIC/WP:GNG alone being enough to merit coverage on Wikipedia. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below" or the more specific guidelines. WP:NACADEMIC says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria." In the more than 100 academic bios I've written it's never crossed my mind that it could be WP:NACADEMIC or bust. I think that part of this conversation should also be split off and held somewhere at a much higher level than a specific deletion discussion. With all of the detritus on this page and the sockpuppeting and strikeouts and everything, this is one legendary oldschool WP mess. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about WP:NACADEMIC. But the obvious consequence is that the article should reflect the fact that the subject is not an academic. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I have two thoughts about that. The first is that notability is a property of topics, not pages; notability is not conditional on how a page is written. For sure we should all WP:BB the page until it reflects the topic's notability. Having said that, the second is that I actually think the page strongly forefronts her activism and nonprofit work, and to me it doesn't really read like an academic bio at all, but more like an activist's bio. Anyhow, now I've said my piece and I think this is the right moment for me to step out and refocus on mainspace work. Thanks for the discussion! - Astrophobe (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:BASIC. Media coverage goes well beyond one event. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sadie Collective page. Subject of article is a activist of minor influence in the economics community, only significant piece of activism is the editorial in the New York times. Others are publications in in think thank websites, or self-published on Medium. The main thrust of her activism is advancing the objectives of the Sadie collective. While she also has founded Black Birder's week, it is a one-time bird-watching+activism event. I thus propose redirecting the page to the Sadie Collective article, adding a reference to the Black Birder's week to Anna's mention in the Sadie collective, and a reference to the collective in the part where Anna is mentioned on the black birder article. If Anna attains more influence in the future, we can create a standalone article.--Ysjzysn (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the organization she created is notable, but she isn't? Is this some sort of variant of the debunked deletion argument regarding authors with notable books and that somehow not conferring notability? Also, there's a ton of references discussing her that isn't about the Sadie Collective, but about other organizations and events she created. SilverserenC 05:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I seem to have conflated her organization and her own work since they have the same thrust. I also acknowledge my bias as an academic economist, so I might have discounted her as just a research assistant. I do have some suggestions for the article that I have indicated on the talk page that involves clarification and deleting extraneous detail. Peace out. Keep--Ysjzysn (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BASIC is well covered but the subject is also noted making a difference in the world. And yes, she's a member of an underrepresented group; Wikipedia is not neutral if "neutral" means that fewer than 20% of the biographies are about women. Some of the tweets are unfortunate but the content and editing seem up to snuff. Full disclosure, I never knew who she was until I followed her on Twitter as part of Black Birders Week but did add some cites and links (and a category which was perhaps too far) to the article. For what it's worth, I've been editing since before the Wiki had references in articles. Wnissen (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this fits WP:BASIC. Just because anonymous Twitter uses can take to Wikipedia to nominate the pages of people of colour for deletion, doesn't mean they should. As mentioned above, Black Birders Week has been covered on several news sites, as well as by National Geographic and various other societies. There are easily enough references to do with both AGOA herself, the Sadie Collective and BBW. The fact that it was nominated and 'seconded' by Wikipedia 'users' whose only ever contributions are nominating this article for deletion speaks volumes. Jesswade88 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anna and the Sadie Collective are so prominent that even I had heard of them.Richard Tol (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For full disclosure, I heard about this deletion nomination on social media, but am an established editor, and after reviewing the article and the relevant policies, it seems to easily meet WP:BASIC, so I'd say it should be kept. Younotmenotyou (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we close this as snowball keep now, please. Let's call it for what it is: a bad-faith nomination by now-blocked trolls. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not meet WP:PROF, but does easily meet WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2020 (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/Anna_Gifty_Opoku-Agyeman&oldid=1177658176"