Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia A. Nelson


 * 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. So Why  08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sophia A. Nelson

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

The page was created by and has been edited by : those usernames suggest that she's edited her own page over the course of many years. The edit description on the single edit made by also indicates that was her, and there may be other IP edits that belong to her. This seems like brazen self-promotion. Apocheir (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Law, Politics, Africa, Germany, New Jersey,  and Washington, D.C..  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course she fails NPOL. But she passes WP:GNG and maybe WP:NAUTHOR. See South Florida Sun Sentinel, Essence, CNN, and Inside Higher Ed. pburka (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The South Florida Sun Sentinel source is clearly not about her.... AusLondonder (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Possible self-promotion is not reason to delete the article. Plainly passes WP:GNG with significant secondary source coverage for many years (in addition to those listed above): NY Times, Fox News, CBS Philadelphia, NY Post. This is an example of how we need to be careful before reflexively sending pages about people who are underrepresented on Wikipedia to AfD. agt x  15:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The New York Post source is hardly useful. Firstly, per WP:NYPOST but also because it's just about her allegedly making homophobic posts online. Not really something to demonstrate notability. The Fox News source is frankly awful. How could that even be used for a BLP? The New York Times source is routine coverage about her candidacy. AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that the Fox News source is horrible, but it is an entire story regarding a purported controversy about her. I'm not saying it should be cited in the article. I'm saying it's evidence of her notability. The NYT article is a detailed profile about her that appeared in a paper of record, not a passing mention and not something that is afforded to every candidate for whatever office. Nevertheless, there are others:
 * Rothschild, B. S. (2011, May 16). Black women's journey examined. Courier Post https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/black-womens-journey-examined/docview/866991334/se-2?accountid=3328;
 * Jones, J. (2012, Feb). Black women still feel defined by myths. Michigan Chronicle https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/black-women-still-feel-defined-myths/docview/928451872/se-2?accountid=3328;
 * I don't think this should really be in serious question. agt x  15:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The NY Times blurb is clearly local coverage. We'd discount that for any city in the world. Can't look at the proquest articles, the Inquirer might be okay from a book point of view. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically discount "local coverage" in a locale that's home to 20 million people, and I'd be interested in seeing a policy or guideline that says otherwise. pburka (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb? No, a blurb is a few paragraphs. This is a full article that (per text at the end of the article) appeared in the National Edition of the paper. agt x  13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb? No, a blurb is a few paragraphs. This is a full article that (per text at the end of the article) appeared in the National Edition of the paper. agt x  13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * edit conflict - will review new sources She's clearly not notable as a politician and the article is not only self-promotional but appears to have been started as an autobiography. Whether she passes WP:NAUTHOR is difficult to say as the interviews are with her and don't appear to be the normal book reviews. Decent amount of coverage, but it isn't really great coverage. Leaning delete unless articles about her book specifically can be found. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Courier Post article is about the book. It's temporarily available here solely for the purposes of this academic discussion. agt x  13:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Others have pointed out she passes WP:GNG; and the article's creator is not relevant to deletion discussions, although it definitely needs to be reviewed by independent editors for NPOV. --WestCD (talk) 02:40, 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.