Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amma Gyampo


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Amma Gyampo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage including forbes by coi editor. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  15:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  15:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Comment - Entrepreneur article is a Q&A article (despite being attributed to their Staff Writer), Forbes article is written by a Contributor, so that leaves the BBC article to help perhaps help establish the subject's significance. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in BBC, Forbes, Entrepreneur suggests notability to me. Balle010 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no acceptable sourcing to establish notability. There would be with the BBC "article." Except it is a 3 minute long audio piece called "Ghanaian businesswoman Amma Gyampo offers advice on setting up business in Africa." Unfortunately whatever source it might be from, a persons advice on setting up a business doesn't really work toward their notability. So, from what I'm seeing there's nothing out there to establish hers. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Now that you've pointed that out (tbh, I haven't watched the video), I'm certainly voting Delete as a self-initiated interview about a topic that's pretty standard and nothing outstanding that would warrant notability. For the two other publications, those don't count as reliable sources either as those are done by a contributor and the one by their staff writer is a self-initiated Q&A. The subject's career does not indicate in any way any outstanding award or recognition, but that of someone an overview of someone simply doing her job. — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - She has in-depth coverage here in Ayiba Magazine. I also added 2 more sources, . People like her has been covered in many national conferences in Ghana. She might not be notable in the USA but she is notable in Ghana. Kaihsnual (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not in-depth. The first ref is a q&a and looks like PR, the second is her blog, the third is a profile of a conference, the fourth is a YouTube video with 249 views. She is entirely non-notable.  scope_creep Talk  21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see this which was published on Entrepreneur (magazine) by the Editor-in-Chief of South Africa edition. This is another significant coverage in independent reliable media. The youtube link I posted just to show her presence in national level conferences not any business conference and she is not a youtube personality that you will expect huge views for it. Kaihsnual (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The YouTube video is not notable. The entrepreneur reference is another q&a interview as a PR exercise for her company. It pretty standard stuff that you see with all entrepreneurs but that doesn't make her notable. So far I've not see any independent, in-depth coverage.  scope_creep Talk  07:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check this which is another independent coverage about her. Kaihsnual (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ref 6 is 4 lines comment by her, in an investment report and the comment is specific to her company position, that support another point. Hardly in-depth coverage, that is independent and reliable coverage. scope_creep Talk  22:50, 20 July 2020 (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.