Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Kagure Kariuki


 * 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 delete. ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agnes Kagure Kariuki

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No clear evidence of any notability. She has won local business awards in the Insurance industry - great, but not notable in Wikipedia terms. Another ref is an interview - not independent, another is her own Facebook page. Her "fame" is within a small niche of the insurance industry. Appears to fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 09:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. After chancing upon the article yesterday, I was also preparing an AfD nomination for it today. Although listed as a notable businesswoman (but fails under WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO), her real claim is being included on a list of 22 potential replacements for the position of deputy governor of Nairobi. While not initially selected (Miguna Miguna was but then found to be ineligible as a dual citizen), she appears to still be in the running with the usual list of supporters and opponents, some of whom appear to be editing on Wikipedia. Even if she is selected and appointed to this position, she would still fail WP:POLITICIAN as it is not a 'notable' position. Loopy30 (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: The two of you have probably been looking at a version of the article that had recently been edited in a biased manner, which removed a significant amount of information and several citations to reliable sources that discussed the topic. The subject of the article has been involved in high-profile land disputes that have been the subject of rulings by the National Land Commission and the Environment and Land court, and has been accused of other financial improprieties, all of which has resulted in significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is a single-purpose account that has recently been trying to remove certain information from the article and replace it with promotional phrasing. I suggest looking at it again (and perhaps reviewing the article history in case that happens again). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping to editors who have previously shown interest in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I take your point. However, being a criminally corrupt individual does not, by itself, convey notability. I remain unconvinced that the restored text and its sources add sufficiently to the article to pass the notability bar. I would however agree that should the article be retained, the restored text should also be retained.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the above remarks, I just added some more information to the article, including citations to three more reliable news sources that indicate both that she was a major focus of consideration as deputy governor and that her high-profile court disputes were causing difficulty in her consideration. I think it is clear that she has received significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did indeed look at the complete history of the article first before composing my comment above. While there were/are SPA's adding biased (or at least unsourced) information both positive and negative, my real concern is the notability of the article subject in toto. The article claims notability as a businesswoman but does not support that. As a politician (which she is not), the position for which she is being considered (amongst 21 other people on the list) is not a notable position. As a party to land disputes and financial improprieties, if these cases are notable, then it is these court cases that should have a page, not the individual. Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See talk page for additional comment from Knowledge Cloud. Loopy30 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment moved here from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Agnes Kagure Kariuki, since it seems to be trying to influence this discussion:
 * Please the author who put this up was biased and quoted a court case which is on going, which is illegal in my country Kenya, the subject is a mother of two and the reference to her in such demeaning words is damaging and full of malice, surely we have to protect living human beings from such auditors who have no facts apart from bloggers articles, please administrators delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Cloud (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per . Attack article about non-notable individual involved in non-notable legal disputes. I think PROD would be more appropriate than AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete also per . There isn't even an article for the Governor of Nairobi, why should we have one on one of the 22 candidates for Deputy Governor whose only claim to notability is being accused of corruption? SWL36 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is an article for the Governor of Nairobi. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was referring to an article about the office itself but you are right. SWL36 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to establish notability. Written like a resume/advertisement.   red dogsix (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (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.