Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique Sina


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Angelique Sina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was almost certainly created by the subject herself or at her behest. A Facebook search back when I placed the noncontroversial delete flag even showed her gloating about the entry (it’s apparently deleted or no longer public now).

The removal of the noncontroversial notability deletion flag did not address substantive concerns expressed in tag. “I think she’s notable” is a vacuous impression. Also, linking to the bias critiques of Wikipedia page isn’t an argument. The fact that there may in fact be some, mainly unconscious, bias in Wikipedia doesn’t mean we suddenly lower our standards just because the subject belongs to whatever group or category an editor may think (without spelling out) we’re biased against.

Most of the sources for the article are puff pieces, public relations pieces (including the subject’s probably paid-for wedding announcement!). Even the seemingly newspaper sources are from shady web-only publications with distinguished sounding names. So shady in fact that they don’t even qualify for a Wikipedia entry of their own.

When in 20 March, Stevey7788 wanted to decline the submission of the article, an anonymous editor requested on 12 April that the rejection be reviewed again saying: “‎Please review again, sources show significant coverage and includes neutral sources such as Baltimore Post.” However, the Baltimore Post isn’t referenced. What is referenced is the Baltimore Post-Examiner along with the LA Post-Examiner, both website-only publications for public relations placements and some third-tier reporting and not actual, editorially-significant news that would signal Wikipedia-level notability (maybe community-level notability at best).

From the text of the article itself, the subject has basically held a couple of entry-level to mid-level jobs at the IFC and World Bank. And later got appointed to a few charity or community boards of no particular saliency.

It’s not that she hasn’t gotten anything done in life, it’s that it’s not really all that remarkable. Half the population of Washington, DC would qualify for a Wikipedia bio entry if this subject qualifies at this point. Deletion should have been uncontroversial.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TopDomino (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the awards she has received as a young leader provide her notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There's really only a couple independent refs providing coverage of the subject, and they are both published interviews which makes them more primary sources. The rest is all paid for PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2019 (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.