Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Medufia

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 redirect to 100 Women (BBC). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Medufia

[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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. All the sources are based on her being named on a BBC list that "includes leaders, trailblazers and everyday heroes". This I do not believe meets the significant award criteria. We are more on the lines of a WP:BIO1E Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect (to 100 Women (BBC)) - Unfortunately I feel I need to agree, there isn't enough coverage in them to satisfy Sig Cov (particularly once the paragraphs about how good/important the BBC 100 list is). I couldn't find any more suitable secondary coverage. ~~No obvious redirect target.~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting, to stay in line with the rest of the list I'm not sure how much content should be added, but a small level could be added regardless of the result of this AfD, though nothing near a proper merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~List of Ghanaians~~ or some other suitable target. Although I added a source, I still feel the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth per WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." ----Pontificalibus 13:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list seems to require an individual to be independently notable to be included (otherwise there'd be more than 5 or so non-blues) - if we merged this, it would stop qualifying for it. I'm not against merging if the list has a broader set of rules or there's an alternate target. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against merging into this list because it is clearly for notable people as per the WP definition so the inclusion would need a blue link (I'll have a look at the redlinks already there.) If there were a page for the BBC 100 women then that would be the logical place but that might be just listcruft. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massive apologies to @Pontificalibus:, I thought I'd written it on mine, which makes no sense since I didn't propose merge. Mea maxima culpa Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as it is I would be happy to merge to 100 Women (BBC), and am noting it down here so it's clear you are not objecting to this new target.----Pontificalibus 09:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See 100 Women (BBC), where she is listed and linked. Did anyone try a "what links here"? Inclusion in that list, along with the profile in Medium and speaking at international conference, seem sufficient to confer notability. PamD 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC) (expanded 14:47)[reply]

I'm happy for that to make a more logical merge target, but I still don't think, on its own, it can provide enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge target but I too also fail to see how being chosen to feature on this list as one of what I can only presume are the "everyday heroes" makes her automatically notable. This is not IMHO a significant award as per WP:ANYBIO. This documentary series deliberately mixes notable and anonymous women that the documentary makers find inspiring. We have already discussed such lists (Forbes etc) and concluded that they do not confer notability without more in depth coverage in other sources. If we accept this as conferring notability then being featured in any documentary in any capacity will suffice so long as it's reported elsewhere. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the extension. Surely speaking at an international conference would fall afoul of the same lack of independence that disqualifies the interview part of an interview article? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 17 August 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.