Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Teriba


 * 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Annie Teriba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vast majority of sources used are either Daily Mail (unreliable) or student newspapers (unreliable and don't establish wider notability). Also despite being quoted in the press once or twice this very much seems like a BLP1E article that centers around criminal allegations. Bosstopher2 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prior to the scandal, which received widespread coverage, she was already notable for the magazine she founded, as indicated here, and for the Rhodes Must Fall campaign she organized and was quoted on in Sky News - that got fairly wide coverage: and a bunch of other sources. She also was quoted in The Guardian about a protest over a speaker at Oxford:, and for leading the Black Students' Union, which she also founded, to get the Oxford Union to declare itself institutionally racist:. And then lots of in-depth coverage after the scandal including but not limited to:. Depending on your point of view, it could be a BLP3E, BLP4E, or (very generously) a BLP5E. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it's worth mentioning that no criminal allegation is mentioned in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She's not just in the Daily Mail. I fixed up the sources a little and she's in the Guardian, Huffpost, a newspaper from South Africa, the Independent. I agree that some of the sources (Breitbart!) are not reliable. The student sources just verify the information. But she's well covered in much better sources and passes GNG. She's also part of a hot-button issue right now: "regressive left" I think it's called, that may be why she's covered so well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a BLP car crash of an article, all reliant on sources of dubious merit. Sammy's supposed extra sources illustrate this problem: a couple of campaigns on which she was a media spokesperson, multiple very opinionated Daily Mail articles, a conservative magazine ranting about "dangerous delusions", and an Independent article on the unbelievably notable topic of "the 12 biggest events to have occurred at UK universities in 2015". This should be deleted post-haste as a poorly-sourced hit piece on a non-notable living person. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and The Independent are all perfectly respectable, as is Sky News. She also wasn't a "media spokesperson" for these campaigns - she founded and ran them. And far from being a "hit piece" this article gives a far more measured presentation of the non-criminal allegations against this notable person than most of the tabloids did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's get real: she was *quoted* in The Guardian, and the article in The Independent is so far from substantive coverage that I specifically mocked using it in my initial response. I've been quoted in The Guardian making comment on a campaign I founded too: it sure as hell doesn't make me notable, or the god knows how many thousand either non-notable activists who don't warrant hit-piece Wikipedia articles. Why are we focusing on giving a "far more measured presentation" of very serious allegations that aren't covered in reliable sources? Have you read WP:BLP? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Current sources clearly establish notability. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - good sourcing, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (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.