Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasandra Nyker


 * 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 no consensus. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Jasandra Nyker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at (a site of a company she works for). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the references in the article aren't sufficient to establish notability, she had some sort of role at the World Economic Forum. As far as I know, that's like a super exclusive event, presumably only for notable people. But I've been unable to figure out how relevant it might be in establishing notability. Can someone more enlightened than me give some sort of analysis on this? Hmanburg (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * World Economic Forum is not a super exclusive event, it has plenty of sub-events which are conference style and have hundreds of attendees if not thousands (for example, you can read about tickets FAQ to one such related event here:, this news articles says there are 3,000 attendees and maybe ten times as many people who attend side events, official or otherwise...), and anyway, attending an exclusive event is generally not sufficient to become notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED and the already cited ANYBIO above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! Had just put out a random thought I had so that it could be discussed and not left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She did more than just attending. In the 2012 she was chosen as a Young Global Leader. Although, hundreds of people have been given this distinction over the years, there are less from Africa: "Of the 192 YGLs announced in the class of 2012, there are 22 young leaders from Africa from fields ranging from business and civil society to media and politics." Also, she was a speaker in one of the discussion panels in 2017. Even though I think this participation at the World Economic Forum is good evidence of notability, I don't think it is enough to establish it. I'm still doing some research before casting my iVote. Alan Islas (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete World Economic Forum and Young Global Leader are just the upper-class equivalent of top 20 whatevers,  a vehicle for publicity, not importance or anything that corresponds to any realworld or wp standard of notability .In the absence of other factors, I tend to think even including them in an article an example of promotionalism  . When it's the most that can be said, it's a demonstration of both promotionalism  and non-notability.  DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if we disregard everything related to the World Economic Forum, I believe the sufficient notability of this subject can still be argued. Concerning the basic criteria of significant coverage in WP:BASIC, there are now 23 sources in the article. Conceding that most of them (or even all) do not provide very in depth coverage, the policy allows for this situation: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
 * On the additional criteria in WP:ANYBIO, I believe that applicability of point 1 could be debated, depending if the awards are "minor" or not. Perhaps grounds for point 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") are stronger, with the specific field being the renewable energy industry in Africa. Not sure about the historical record though, maybe too soon to tell. But in anycase, the additional criteria is not mandatory, but can help to a degree. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per (video interview by the BBC),  (brief mention in Atlanta Black Star),  (brief profile in an engineering trade journal). I place particular weight on the interview by the BBC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC is reliable, but video clips are rarely useded as references (I am not sure what is the policy on video and sound materials?), but WP:INTERVIEW in general suggests interviews are rarely good sources, as they are usually the subject talking about him/herself and so not an independent analysis. Logically, interview is just a fast and dirty type of autobiography... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wary about placing weight on an interview. But, in this case, it's from one of the world's largest and most respected news organizations. Concerns we'd ordinarily have about a publicist getting free advertising from a periodical through an interview do not appear relevant when we're talking about the BBC. I see no particular reason why a video from a respected news organization should not be used as a source, although I agree that it's not fantastic. In sum, I read the fact that she was interviewed by the BBC as an indication that a reliable, third party media organization thought she and her work were sufficiently important to devote a substantial segment to. But, again, I agree that it's not a great source—hence why my keep is still weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:56, 6 September 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.