Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Akua Nyarko Petterson

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. As noted by RebeccaGreen, there's some cleanup that needs to happen with the sources. Facebook??? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @PamD: please don't rename pages while an AfD is in progress. If nothing else, it breaks the automated scripts that most people use to close them, which makes extra manual work to clean up after the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Akua Nyarko Petterson

[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)

With correctly-spelled name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment I've moved the article to the correct spelling of her name (Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson - hyphen between 2nd and 3rd components, and "Patterson" with an "a"): it seemed too bad to leave even though there's an ongoing AfD. PamD 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author) She is very notable in my country looking at the kind of social works she has done. She is an activist for girl and the marginalised person. Jwale2 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2: Can you provide reliable sources that substantiate this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese sure why not, but I want to find out whether you have also looked at the sources I provided for her articleJwale2 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwale2: yeah, I looked, is that all you are able to provide? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the sources listed in the article, AmeyawDebrah.Com has significant coverage, but I wonder about it's reliability, it looks like a personal website. The second source triggered my antivirus, so I think not reliable. The last source is a link to Petterson's site, so primary source, not reliable. A WP:BASIC basic search turned up nothing, so I searched for Ghana newspapers. I tried Ghana times, IRIN News, a couple of others found here. Nothing from any of them. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. I have found and added another source, a long article in The Weekend Finder. The CitiFM and EnewsGH articles also provide significant coverage, and as far as I can see, are independent and reliable. There is also shorter coverage from Ghana News Agency and the Herald Ghana. I agree that the AmeyawDebrah source is not reliable, and I don't think the CNBC Africa one is independent - it is sourced to Forbes, and the Forbes article does not have an author's name. I have also edited the article. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson, the correct spelling of her name - it currently has "Petterson", which would not help in finding sources. Some of the unreliable sources could probably be removed, but that is another job. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. It is borderline but there are sources (per RebeccaGreen above), and RS are thin on the ground in her part of the world (and even thinner for female-BLPs). CNBC/Fortune would not be covering her if she was a nobody. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2019 (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.