Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'Taki Osborne Jelks


 * 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Na'Taki Osborne Jelks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Freshly minted PhD who does not (yet?) meet WP:PROF. As mentioned on the article's talk page, the claim to notability per WP:NACADEMIC is based on an award, Champions of Change, and two articles: one in the New York Times, the other in People. However, the NYT article is an opinion piece (which only mentions the subject in a single sentence), and the People article is a human-interest story, which means neither should suffice per WP:RSEDITORIAL. And as for the award: Champions of Change is not an academic award but instead a recognition for activists. It has been given to literally hundreds of people during Obama's term in office, almost none of whom have a Wikipedia article (and certainly none for just that). bender235 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pi  (Talk to me!)  20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pi  (Talk to me!)  20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this assistant professor (and Champions of Change doesn't seem relevant to that standard).  However, I think the People profile contributes strongly to notability (although we should be cautious of the fact-checking there, per the nom).  Together with the NYTimes mention and national award, it seems already enough for GNG.  Helping support is an interview in this book.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought we generally exclude human-interest stories when determining notability. We could easily find hundreds of stories similar to the "mom's breast cancer" People article, like say this one, but we generally don't assume it justifies notability by itself. Or maybe I'm wrong, and we now need an article like “Allison Brown is a Covid-19 survivor who has been featured in USA Today.” --bender235 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we'd exclude Allison Brown under WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, as the activism work is ongoing.  What do you think about the interview in the book? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The book itself seems like a reliable source. But again, like pretty much all the sources in the article so far, this is describing the subject as an environmental activist, not an academic. Do we have special notability criteria for those, or do we just go by WP:SIGCOV? I actually been wondering about this since AfD/Carl Smith (activist), because we have plenty of activist biographies that are marginally notable at best. --bender235 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability_(people) doesn't seem to have anything for activists specifically. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ...so we just have GNG to work with. Here, the substantial People profile together with the book interview definitely looks like significant coverage from multiple independent sources to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF, but not sure yet if notable on other grounds, am learning towards weak delete though. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Borderline case; consensus NPROF not met, but could be GNG; however, specific refs that would meet GNG not fully in evidence yet
 * Weak keep under WP:GNG as there is some reliable independant coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I think WP:NPROF / WP:NACADEMIC are the wrong guidelines to apply here, so this nom got off on the wrong foot. She got an award from the White House in 2014, two years prior to even getting her PhD. I believe she meets WP:GNG as written based on the White House, NYTimes and People links, and should be kept. --Krelnik (talk) 13:45, 29 June 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.