Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lantana Usman


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Lantana Usman

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

This article has been PRODed and I did consider a G11 speedy request, but on balance, I think this needs an AfD discussion. Promotional article, that likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Nigeria,  and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:PROF per WP:MILL. Her h-index is 7, which indicates an ordinary mid-career academic. StAnselm (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is all primary sources, so I understand why it was AfDed. But searched on Google books show that she passed WP:AUTHOR on the basis of reviews of her work. As follows:
 * 1) Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in Asia/Pacific and Africa: Perspectives on Development, Education, and Culture. (2010). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan US. includes detailed analysis of her writing in page 10, of the quality of review that WP:AUTHOR calls for, this is the first of the two reviews needed to satisfy the WP:AUTHOR criteria.
 * 2) YUKSE, A. Haluk. "Using Learning Technologies." Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 3.2 (2002). also includes an academic review of her writing. CT55555 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Striked out my initial vote after seeing good analysis below. CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not at all convinced of a WP:NAUTHOR pass on any of the four criteria, and certainly not on those two reviews - the second especially is both brief and poor quality (and is about a chapter she wrote, not a book!). Her citations seem low for education, which I understand to be a reasonably high-citation field. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the only references in this article are for her publications, but there are three sizable paragraphs about her - regarding the actual content of this article as it stands, this is essentially a BLP with no citations. There are some dubious claims in here too, like "the first Northern Nigerian woman to earn a PhD degree at the Department of Educational Policy Studies, at the University of Alberta" (if you drill down far enough into subcategories, "first" isn't particularly meaningful) and "during her graduate studies, she was awarded ... grants" (I would be surprised to find this was uncommon at UofA). "Prof.Usman is the first Black woman to obtain the position of a Tenured Full Professor since the founding of UNBC" is demonstrably false, unless the university's own website is in error: . -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * CT55555 has got the wrong end of the stick. That 2010 book, ISBN 9780230111813, is an edited collection, and, as is par for the course with edited collections, its introduction, written by the editors, is basically a chapter by chapter summary of what each contributor has written for the collection.  It's not a review.  I cannot find that edited collection reviewed, which isn't unusual.  An actual academic book review would look like .  Or indeed like CT55555's second source, which is a review of an earlier edited collection for which this person has contributed a chapter.  Reviews of edited collections are usually pretty thin for Wikipedia purposes, and this is indeed the case here.  The article's creator is  who has a deleted article about a literary agent, and the article's other major contributor  geolocates to the same place as this article subject's university.  So it's fairly obvious where all of this unverifiable biography has come from.  This is not independently and reliably sourced.  This is autobiography, either direct or indirect.  Delete.  Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further analysis. I find this persuasive. I've scored out my "keep". CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (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.