Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Harrison Okoro


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After close analysis of sources, there is no agreement whether the article should be improved or deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Melanie Harrison Okoro

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

This article was created by a WikiEd student editing project, with indications on talk of COI. I can find no indication of notability beyond minor local coverage. It does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is met, but perhaps someone can find something. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and Businesspeople. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Environment, Basketball, Alabama, Florida, Maryland,  and North Carolina.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just on the off chance that it wasn't clear, the article was created in 2019 by a student editor D hall0504 from this course, and they said their list of potential biographies “was crowdsourced via Twitter and Facebook discussion boards”.-- Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and we do not have evidence of notability through WP:GNG. I would be open to changing my mind if this AfD turns up in-depth coverage of the subject in independent and reliably published sources, but currently we have none of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with SG and David. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify, don't delete. This school project is underway through early December. This will let students work on it.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding the logic of having students work on an article if it doesn't meet notability; what are they learning then? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what A. B. means is that the article does meet notability but more time is needed to prove it? -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; then perhaps they can find some evidence of notability that I couldn't. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I doubt this article will be good enough. Perhaps I'm too accommodating; my recommendation to draftify is to give the students more time to work on it, at least through the end of their assignment. If it's not good enough, then I assume it will just expire on its own after 6 months in article limbo.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I believe they are all in sandbox anyway (eg User:SydtheSloth22/Melanie Harrison Okoro) and Wiki Ed staff has spoken to the prof about not moving their articles in to main space, as there are numerous problems (including I think all their image uploads are copyvios).  So it seems a draft might be redundant? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since that's the case, Delete . Thanks for getting involved here.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think some of the logic of using students is that the minority group is very under represented in the Wikipedia space. Yes, students may need some corrections (simply because we do not have the experience as you all do) but I am certain after this lesson that's being learned, I would have learned a lot as a new editors. As well, most minority people just do not get the gigantic exposures as other groups. So in order for wikipedia to attempt  to do it's part in closing the gap yes reliable regional publication is what the reach may be for the subject at this moment. Wikipedia realizes this and this is why they are reaching out to colleges to start to engage.  I admit before this assignment, I always thought only professional prominent people created wikipedia pages. Now, I know I too can be a part of a diverse group teaching and adding to the big website full of data,  SydtheSloth22 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SydtheSloth22, I’m not sure if minority people are under-represented, but I do think some groups like are under-represented. But let’s admit it, many groups are under-represented in the real world, so perhaps Wikipedia is just reflecting that?
 * Anyway, it doesn’t relate much to our discussion here, because those under-represented can still be notable, and the under-represention can be one of the reasons that makes one notable! -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article was created in 2019. I am a student learning about updating and creating wiki pages. I am removing the image and would like to uploaded after reviewing more wiki images video to ensure it is properly uploaded. The image is free to use but the uploading process is plain out confusing. Perhaps I need more training to understand all of the image uploading options. This article had merit before I made any changes to it. Dr. Okoro has had lots of media coverage on the work and accomplishments, she has earned. I am fine with the page reverting back from my edits. Her page should not be deleted.Dustfreeworld  SandyGeorgia SydtheSloth22 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for joining in; the best way to learn about Wikipedia is get actively engaged, as you're doing. We can discuss the image issues back at Talk:Melanie Harrison Okoro, so this page can stay focused on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guideine.  There's no need to worry about older versions of the article, as experienced editors know how to look back, and also how to look forward in terms of discovering whether third-party independent sources with more than a passing mention exist to demonstrate notability, even when those aren't yet in the article. I've responded to your image queries over on the article talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the attitude of SydtheSloth22 and the kind words of Sandy. These are the reasons to stay :) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage exists in this profile in a Sacramento magazine, brief profile by Danielle N. Lee for Scientific American, a writeup from her alma mater (semi-independent), and video profile from KQED (using her maiden name). Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hameltion's new refs. Thanks for digging these up.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * for a look. I'm not sure I'm comfortable using a blog, even if Scientific American, or her connected alma mater, or a small local magazine to establish notability, but then, I'm dismal at AFD, so pay me no mind. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) American Geophysical Union
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20190228130343/https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/melanie-harrison-okoro-2/
 * 2) Ecological Society of America
 * https://www.esa.org/montreal2022/plenaries/
 * 3) Aldo Leopold Nature Center
 * https://alncfeaturedscientist.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/dr-melanie-harrison-okoro/ (A long page about her; cited in the article long before this AfD)
 * 4) Grist (magazine)
 * https://grist.org/article/meet-8-black-leaders-who-are-reshaping-the-climate-movement/ (One of the 8 leaders described)
 * 5) California High-Speed Rail
 * https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Small_Business_Factsheet_082521_A11Y.pdf (Page 2, one long paragraph)
 * 6) American Scientist
 * https://www.americanscientist.org/author/melanie_harrison_okoro (short profile)
 * +) Plus the Sci American one which was cited in the article long before this AfD.
 * PS. IMHO the Sci American page can also be counted as RS per Identifying_reliable_sources_(science):
 * ”... blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and Discover blogs host many such experts, as do more specific portals such as the public outreach and service blogs at the Large Hadron Collider blogs or the more STEM policy oriented blog hosted by the American Physical Society.” -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC) -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These (and the sources you've cited above), appear to be short bios or interviews, which isn't enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia, The Scientific American blog reference possibly works per WP:NEWSBLOG which makes an exception (with a caveat) for news organization' blogs:
 * "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. 'Jane Smith wrote ...'"
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi voorts, thanks for the reply. As I’m fairly new here, can you explain that more? As per WP:SIGCOV,
 * "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 -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the requirements for notability is that a source must be independent. The sources you've cited are either brief bios in the context of the subject being a contributor to or associated with a project or publication, brief mentions in top 10 lists, or they're interviews. Interviews do not generally establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation :)
 * I agree with you that sources associated with the subject are not suitable for establishing notability. I just listed whatever I found, thinking that some of those can be used as sources later. I still believe the sources #3, #4 and #5 I listed above and the Sci American one do establish notability. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough evidence yet to pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC).


 * Comment She appears to have a lot of public engagement in science communication as shown in the oldest version of this article. What about WP:NACADEMIC, e.g. #4, #7? (That section needs clean-up if it’s to be included in the article though).
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I would like to add that the article was created in 2019 by a student editor from this course, which I believe is not the same as the mentioned problematic course  course  that appears to have coi issues. -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ; edited 18:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that she is notable. The references presented are very poor and don't provide any support in keeping the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and mostly definently fails WP:NPROF.   scope_creep Talk  12:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the nominator, I am an implied Delete, but because I am dismal at AFD, I wanted to hold off on forming an opinion until more experienced AFDers had weighed in. I believe the Deletes have it right, and the discussion at the Education noticeboard pushes me away from not speaking up in the interest of the students' hard effort.  They have been choosing subjects from sub-optimal lists of what is deemed notable, which is not a good learning experience for them under any circumstances.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * 7) How to Engage More African Americans in STEM, HEATHER M. THORSTENSEN, Blog from the staff (same event mentioned at Sigma Xi) - a Google Hangout moderated by Sigma Xi's manager of programs, Janelle Simmons
 * 8) Celebrating Bay Area Women in STEM KQED
 * And What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad
 * With my other reasons above and WP:BASIC . -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ; edited 10:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigma Xi newsletter May-June 2016, p.4 (similar to 7 above, but not blog anymore)
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All of those sources are interviews, which generally don't establish notability unless they're in very high quality sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, but please see Interviews:
 * “A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography...
 * ...interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts.
 * ...if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline.If you aren't looking at a reputable publication, you need to consider whether the interview is really an advertisement written and paid for by a marketing campaign…” -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think the sources above and in article show the person meets ANYBIO#2, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", NPROF#1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". This is a stretch, but I think it crosses the finish line.  // Timothy :: talk  11:24, 18 November 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.