Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aderonke Apata


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Aderonke Apata

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NOT ADVOCACY, and NOT TABLOID. This personal story, however harrowing, is not encyclopedic content. That other publications print this is not evidence that we should  DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is backed up by several reliable sources, including articles from The Guardian, NBC News, The Independent, The Telegraph, and HuffPost. All of extensive coverage is more than enough to establish and justify notability. If you don't like certain parts of the article, then please feel free to remove them, but advocacy alone doesn't mean we should just get rid of an article. Also, the point of view I wrote the article from reflects the point of view of the RSes, and in terms of lgbt topics, reality leans to the left, but If you don't like that, change the point of view. There are even several books that mention Apata X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG has also failed to explain what specific problems the article even has. If you list the problems, I could fix them. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made an improved version of the article here in which I have removed all of the unreliable sources and trimmed the lede to be more neutral. X-Editor (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete — Per, imho The article has potential to be of value but as of now it’s poorly written & cannot remain on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think it's poorly written, then fix the article. A poorly written article alone is no justification for deletion. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep: while there may be some issues with the article (such as it possibly being a bit too detailed about her story, and I'm not too sure about the "Awards and honours" section: is being Ranked No. 41 in the Rainbow List from The Independent that significant to be included?); I think there is just enough coverage of the person to keep the article: the sources in the article that talk about her are - I think - in depth enough to keep. Issues with the article itself aren't enough to warrant deletion, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to draftifying this article (as seems to be arguing for in their delete !vote above) - although I still think it should be kept (and then possibly trimmed down quite a bit).  Seagull123  Φ  16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I made some edits significantly trimming the article. If you want to do trimming of your own, please feel free to do so. X-Editor (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest very much more trimming of the bio section is needed--the details are in the sources; and certainly we should remove the trivial awards and placements; After it's written as much as possible, it might be clearer to see if there is actually any notability . A poorly written article  -- or any article -- that is unfixable to a NPOV standard  is a justification for deletion. If someone thinks they can fix it, the question is whether it can be done here, moved to draft, or the article started over. .  DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What content in the bio would you suggest trimming? X-Editor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This afternoon I read every one of the newspaper and web accounts cited, and a good deal else, (except for her book). It is the case, as in almost all survivor stories, that almost the entire account of the horrendous events is due to the person's own statements (and, as is inevitable, the news and similar sources essentially copy each other for this period.)   (I also read two lengthy handbooks on how to evaluate  such accounts--the conclusion is  basically that  for humanitarian purposes the only ethical thing is to take them as they are given unless they can be shown impossible--and this is to some degree  the direction of current law in the EC, though not the US). My previous experience is with survivor stories from a different continent and generation, and my interest in  them is their evaluation for historical purposes, which is another question entirely (as is the way such accounts should be handled in an encyclopedia).    What concerns me more about this article  is that for the events in the UK  the sources also essentially copy each other--this is usually the result of effective PR.
 * It might be possible to write about this in a way which is objective but not unsympathetic, but this is beyond my abilities. I am not sure anyone here can really do it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All sources copy each other to some extent, but all the sources that mention her don't just contain the same information. Some have unique info that can only be found in one or two or a few sources. I also think it would be very hard to write the article from an objective but not unsympathetic POV as the bias in the sources Wikipedia uses often reflects onto WP. And yes, good PR can result in a Wiki article as long as the PR gets picked by and verified by multiple different independent media outlets. X-Editor (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, even high-quality PR copied into WP cannot make an acceptable NPOV article. At least, in the 14 years I've been working with articles on people and organizations,  I have never seen it, though well-done responsible PR can in some cases serve as a source for straightforward undisputed factual materials that can with caution be used in a encyclopedia article.  PR by its very nature is neither independent or NPOV.  The very few honest declared paid editors in WP tell me that it is very difficult to support a business writing NPOV articles for Wikipedia, because their clients do not generally accept NPOV work.  And it's also the case that a proper NPOV Wikipedia  article about a worthy cause or useful product can incidentally serve to some degree for PR as well as information.
 * All of us can very easily deal with commercial PR; but when its PR for a sympathetic cause it becomes much more difficult. That's why I don't want to edit this article -- i don't want to seem unfriendly, or act as if I did not recognize the problem or applaud the heroism. And I find it very difficult even to write this.  DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PR is a huge part of actvism tho, so it's really difficult to separate the two. I am not a paid editor BTW. If there were articles criticizing her, I would've added them and their content too. At this point, I think it would be best to end our discussion here as we can't seem to come to any sort of agreement. X-Editor (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I do agree with you that "PRi s a huge part of activism." NOTADVERTISING applies to activism just as much as commercial enterprise. It isn't appropriate for us to bend the rules in favor of those causes we support--that's the opposite of NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if there were reliable sources criticizing her, I would've added the content from those sources to the article, but I couldn't find any, which is why it may seem to you that the content is not neutral. I'll admit however, that the original article's POV was bad, which is why I trimmed the lede and removed lots of unreliable sources and their content from the article. I'm also surprised that no one has closed this deletion discussion yet. I guess it's because of our long conversation, so I think it would be best if we end our discussion here and let another user make the closing decision for this deletion. X-Editor (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to point out that the exchange of vies in the discussion is often more valuable than the decision on the particular article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but this discussion has dragged on for quite a while. X-Editor (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As needs to be repeated far too often: *content is no justification for deletion and AfD is not cleanup*. An activist who has been in UK media for multiple years, high-profile, recognised, discussed in depth in peer-reviewed literature.  There seem to be some very high bars being put up to justify deletion here.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had no idea she was in peer reviewed literature. Thanks for finding those! X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.