Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliza Diop


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Eliza Diop

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not meeting GNG, most sources used are non-RS, appears promotional. Nothing found in Gnews that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Senegal,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject like Forbes, Univision and la Vanguardia to meet our general notability guidelines and the article can be neutralized. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Forbes isn't about her, it's her giving us strategies for this and that. Rest are the same. Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." (bold mine)
 * The source in question includes a sentence and a paragraph. That is clearly more than a trivial mention. It mentions that she is U.S.-based, that she is a business and strategy online coach and also details how she lost her job during the COVID pandemic and how in a year, she used the $1,200 check to build a multi-million-dollar business. It also talks about her academy. The subject herself may not be the main topic of the article but according to our guideline, that is not necessary to help establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but, since the Forbes article is marked as a contributor piece, it's unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I did not know that, but you are 100% right. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. The La Vanguardia source does look good and I consider that to be WP:RS. I am uncertain on where the other sources stand in terms of reliability so will await comments from others. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Univision also seems like an uncontroversial WP:RS. A quick search reveals additional sources like Fortune and Black Enterprise. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fortune barely talks about her and the article isn't about her. Black Enterprise is an interview, condensed down to a few lines under her photo. Most of these sources are trivial mentions and not enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All the sources presented are more than trivial mentions. They allow for notable content like the fact that she built a multi million dollar business from the ground up in a year to be extracted without original research. As I quoted on my previous comment WP:SIGCOV states that the subject does not need to be the main topic of the reliable source of the coverage to help establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the Black Enterprise is a few lines of text under her photo, the article discusses many things besides her. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Few lines is enough for WP:SIGCOV. Being the main topic is not required. But in any case, here is another article from Black Enterprise where she is the main topic: Meet the single mom who turned her $1,200 stimulus check into a seven-figure business after getting laid off. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is also minimal coverage, more of the space on the page is used to show her instagram and her photo than talking about her. Significant coverage is an entire, full-page article, not a few lines of text on a site that has more space with ads than article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. To me WP:SIGCOV is a clear guideline. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for point that out.  // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fairly obvious WP:CHURNALISM going on with each source more or less parroting the same lines. No serious independent coverage of the individual.-KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check this extensive article about the subject from La Vanguardia (Spain) or this other one from Mag, El Comercio (Peru) or the three articles from the US Latin news channel Univision. All are about the subject of the bio and all find  the fact that she built a multi million dollar business in a year with a check from the CVOVID pandemic notable enough to publish. They are in Spanish but they can be easily translated into English with most browsers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per KH-1. The significant coverage appears to be a serious case of WP:CHURNALISM as it is more or less the same article reposted on different sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CHURNALISM is just an essay, is neither a policy or a guideline and if you look at the different titles and dates of the reliable sources both in the article and with a quick search you will see that they do not match. the US channel Univision for example, published three different articles and independent reliable sources from different countries also published articles. Many do cover similar information, but others don't. The guideline that needs to be satisfied is WP:SIGCOV. And there is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and the sourcing is very questionable. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS.  // Timothy :: talk  05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * hello, Please confirm if you think that the references from La Vanguardia (a major newspaper from Spain) or from El Comercio (Peru) or from the US channel Univision to name just 3, are not RS or are not independent of the subject, and if so, please elaborate why. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (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.