Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siene Allwell-Brown

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 no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siene Allwell-Brown

[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)

Vanity piece on a non-notable business or media person or lawyer (not quite sure which is the claim to fame). The sources cited are all primary, and a search finds nothing of substance, just a few passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prominent Nigerian newscaster and style-icon in the 1980s. Quite a few sources on Google Books. Profile on Massmediang (not self-published), multi-page profile in the African Guardian from 1988 [1], entry in Nigerian Women's Annual from 1990 [2] Furius (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Siene Allwell-Brown is a highly recognized figure in Africa. Her influence spans across many sectors and industries in Nigeria. None of the references used in the article is self published as you have wrongly assumed. DoubleGrazing Did you take time to go through the various articles about her on the search result pages of Google? TJO28 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TJO28: "highly recognized figure" is not really a notability criterion, though. And yes, I did conduct a BEFORE search, of course, as mentioned in my nomination; the problem was, while there are mentions of her, none of them seems to satisfy the sicgov requirements of WP:GNG. And just for the record, I didn't say anything about "self published"; I tagged the article for primary sources, but that's different. In any case, since you're the article creator, please feel absolutely free to add any references that you think demonstrate notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per rationale by Furius. An entry in Africa Who's Who means that subject passes ANYBIO. TheSokks_(talk) 08:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide an actual citation? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Nigerian Women Annual: Who's Who. Benin City: Gito & Associates. 1990. p. 64. ISSN 0795-7807. TheSokks_(talk) 16:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's rather my point. 'Nigerian Women Annual' is not quite 'Africa Who's Who', is it? In any case, I don't think that publication meets the description of "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", per WP:ANYBIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full title says "Nigerian Women Annual: Who's Who". By definition, a Who's who is a compilation of brief biographical sketches of prominent persons in a particular field. TheSokks_(talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:SIGCOV isn’t met and the sources used in the article are lackluster at best. The first source used in the article lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, and clearly indicates that they are a web blog, same with the second source used, have no reputation for fact checking, the third source is medium.com obviously very unreliable and the fourth and last source used are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking and do not have editorial oversight. So @TJO28 it does appear that DoubleGrazing indeed carried out a before. Lastly, Questioning if the nom (especially if they are trusted with very sensitive user right such as NPR) carried out a before search is not only condescending and rude but it is not assuming good faith on your part. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the online sources aren't adequate, that doesn't neutralise the various published offline sources. WP:OFFLINE, if we're throwing WP:ACRONYMs around. My assumption looking at this is that Allwell-Brown is notable for her activities in the 1980s, not for her activities since. If the weighting of the article is wrong that is something to be corrected by editing, not deletion. Furius (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius, “if the weighting”? I’m sorry do you mean wording? I choose to believe you meant wording. Furious thank you for your contributions. Although I do not appreciate neither do I think your snarky responses to me are fair, but all the same thank you for your contributions. my !vote remains unchanged. Do have a nice week ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Weighting" as in the amount of weight that the article gives to Allwell-Brown's activities in the 1980s vs the amount of weight that is given to her activities since. I'm sorry for the bit about acronyms and you can vote however you like, but you haven't explained why you don't think the offline sources are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius, thanks for the clarification, unfortunately GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. The offline sources are simply not “multiple”. At this juncture and as is customary I believe we just leave the rest to the community and let us observe how it plays out. Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — After close observation, the article appears to be an WP:ADMASQ and a very good one too I might add. An untrained eye would definitely miss it. If you read the article closely, you’d see it’s an attempt to (a) create awareness for her law firm and (b) showcase and advertise her qualifications and achievements, which all fall under WP:SPAM and what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have taken time out to clean up the article; removed unreliable sources and added new ones I found. Snippets from google books suggest that more coverage exists and she was notable for her work on NTA and as we know, notability is not temporary. Kind regards TheSokks_(talk) 00:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that inclusion in Nigerian Women Annual: Who's Who means she is notable. One of the references added since this discussion started calls her "something of an icon across the nation". I also agree that there will be paper sources, given when her career was most active. I too found mentions in Google Books which suggest there is more out there. She is sometimes called Mrs Rasak-Lawal or Lawal-Rasak, which makes her more difficult to track. I have added a sentence to the article and three references. The brief coverage of her announcements of the deaths of important national figures makes it clear she was notable - she is called "usually unflappable" as if most readers would know how she came across. Tacyarg (talk) 21:28, 10 June 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.