Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niven Postma


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Niven Postma

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC) *Comment Niven's book "The sunshine cruise company" did get a named-author review in the Independent which is far from trivial. I'm not into assessing authors. Elemimele (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete article makes no substantive claims of anything that would actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A BLP doesn't need to make substantive claims in its expository text to establish notability. What matters is whether the person is notable. On Wikipedia, notability is established by reference to reliable, independent sources that substantially note the person. And they must be substantial -- mere brief mentions don't count. It's also possible that Niven Postma, as a person versus the book she has written, are separate notability issues, and taken separately, neither would rise to Wikipedia standards of notability. I don't feel qualified to judge. Several articles about either Niven Postma or her book are listed in the references section. I separated out articles that originate one way or another from Niven Postma in an external links section. There are cases where an issue of "independence" arises -- e.g. if it's shown that the majority of the articles about Niven Postma were paid placement on the part of Niven Postma, or that she holds an editorial positions with the media organizations hosting content about here. In that case, I would vote Delete. As it is, having created the article, but with questions about notability still lurking in my own mind, I will abstain. At this point, I have to say, it's disappointing I have yet to see a comment here that argues coherently from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yakushima (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The four sources listed in References I evaluate as follows:
 * By Postma, not independent
 * Ditto
 * Medium is a self-published source, cannot be used per WP:BLPSPS
 * with promotional tone and a buy link, I don't see this as an independent or reliable source (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll make corrections. Yakushima (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reshuffled the links to reflect these objections. Regarding [3], I notice that she was a 2007 "Tutu Fellow", and that this is apparently an appointment to AFLI, which published the piece. She doesn't seem to be formally affiliated with AFLI now. Still, this is promotional of a veteran of a program run by AFLI, and thus not truly independent. I've added a link of her being interviewed, but I'm starting to see the ground is shakey here. My bad, for just dashing something off without more careful scrutiny.I'll leave it as a reference, but tag it "Unreliable source?" Yakushima (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the book you mention is by a different author, John Niven. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise profusely! A major brain-burp there. Comment duly struck. Elemimele (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article may be a brain-burp on my part. We all make mistakes. I'll just wait for a verdict. Yakushima (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete zero indication of notability, or any meaningful information or context even. IMO, speediable as A7, possibly also borderline A1. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 2600:4040:100F:9100:D0DF:37B8:3E03:1A9B (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 22 March 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.