Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhanisse V. Daza


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Jhanisse V. Daza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created by paid editor. I have removed significant portions of the original article, which violated BLP policy, and tagged it with maintenance templates should anyone wish to continue revising it. In my assessment however, there are fundamental problems with the article that warrant deletion: I'd encourage everyone to look for themselves, but my assessments of the sources cited in the article at present are as follows:
 * 1) The subject of the article does not meet the General Notability Guideline. The article as it stands is heavily reliant on primary sources and trivial mentions in news stories. Virtually all the biographical information on Daza had to be removed, because it could not be verified in any reliable source. I have searched for more direct coverage of Daza and her work, but very little mention of her exists outside of self-published sources. The best coverage of her is from the Kent State website, which is clearly significant, but her alma mater is not unquestionably an independent source, and much of what they say relates to her relationship with them, on which they would essentially be a primary source.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not for public relations. Jhanisse V. Daza works for the Human Rights Foundation. The Human Rights Foundation, according to MTDRDC's userpage, paid "Matadord DC" (Probably Matador) to create this page (MTDRDC's only contribution to date). In our conflict of interest guideline, paid editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" (emphasis in original). They are also advised to "put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". That these guidelines were ignored is a huge red flag that the article was created for the wrong reasons (if paid editing alone wasn't enough).

Given the creator's dubious background and the relative anonymity of the subject, this article should be deleted without controversy. — Rutebega ( talk ) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Rutebega  ( talk ) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. — Rutebega  ( talk ) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete It does seem to be a promotional effort. Mentions are frequent but almost always trivial. I would say it is WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a propaganda attempt. Not notable. Created by a paid user (User:MTDRDC) sponsored by a PR company (http://www.matadordc.com/) on behalf of her employer, Human Rights Foundation. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely promotional. But more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, the subject is simply not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 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.