Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sadie Collective


 * 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. There is a consensus here among a majority of editors that there is sufficient, significant coverage across the sources available to demonstrate notability. There appears to be some good-faith disagreement over the significance of some coverage, and the reliability of some sources, but most participants seem to consider it sufficient in total. ~ mazca  talk 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sadie Collective

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a dubious article and appears to be notable until you dig into sources which are almost all primary or unreliable as far as notability goes (ie. Forbes contributor pieces). Many of the trimmed sources were written by the creator(s) or op-eds. The most decent source, The North Star doesn't appear to meet the caliber of editorial oversight in my opinion that we would require for a source to establish notability (see this about us) I think that this is just far too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Philadelphia Inquirer piece gives significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Women in Economics podcast series from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is also independent and can be used as a reliable secondary source for establishing notability--the podcast is moderated by Federal Reserve Bank employee Maria Hasenstab (the Federal Reserve Banks don't do paid advertisements).  Yes, the organization is quite young, but it has attracted quite a lot of attention already.  I am a professional economist who has never met any of the people mentioned in these articles, but I have been hearing about their work. It seems every article that mentions economists' concerns about the lack of Black women entering the field gives a passing mention to the Sadie Collective.  For examples, see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/economy/federal-reserve-diversity-hiring.html, https://www.wsj.com/articles/economics-profession-turns-attention-to-its-race-problem-11577974899, and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/business/economy/economics-race-gender.html--EAWH (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * passing mention, a single sentence where the founder is quoted, no comment on wsj as it's behind a paywall. Podcasts are going to be primary as it's usually appearances by it's founder and not independent. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said those articles gave passing mentions to the Sadie Collective. As for the podcast, please see WP:INTERVIEW: "material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I think you're confusing coverage of Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander with this organization. this is primarily about her, not Sadie Collective outside of mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Philadelphia Inquirer "mentions" The Sadie Collective throughout the article... so it's more than mentioned. It's covered. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The headline, "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective," and multiple paragraphs about the organization make this much more than a passing mention of the Sadie Collective!--EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I've had one of my edits reverted when I addressed concerns about sourcing by adding a good source. The target was moved from sourcing to relevancy. It's one thing to neuter the article of anything resembling promotion, but does not have to read in short, S/V/O sentences like a gradeschool primer. And most importantly, the relevant less than a sentence added won't affect the outcome of the deletion discussion. I have added the info again and I am going to work on this article. Let's add some discussion to this AfD edit battle. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * your comments about this being an "edit battle" are pretty inflammatory and not at all what this is about, so I'd suggest redacting that. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an observation. My constructive edits have been reverted twice, and there's been other edit back and forth outside of my involvement. I only suggest discourse and contribution are welcome as well as appropriate here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom, the depth and reliability of the sources is lacking. Although this article is pretty in-depth, it doesn't qualify notability standards on its own.Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete  This is quite a new organization, however, beyond the long article in the Philadelphia paper, all that I can find by searching are a few mentions and a few quotations from the Collective's staff. It sounds like a wonderful organization, but we are not supposed to keep articles because we like the goals of the organization being profiled.  We are supposed to follow the guidelines about sources.IceFishing (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible source. The Chronicle of Higher Ed has an article that may cover the organization, but I do not have access and ILL may take a little time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Ima go with "keep" because I find more decent news sources for this than for the average anime or YouTuber article--there's a NYT article as well, which I don't have access to--"How the Fed is trying to fix its white male problem". Drmies (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mere mentions in the New York Times carry no more weight than mere mentions in the Podunk Gazette. The Times article is a detailed examination of efforts by the Fed to recruit female economists.  One Fed economist told the times that  "She has become involved with the Sadie Collective, a new initiative meant to support black women in economics."  IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahem. No. A mere mention in the NYT means a hell of a lot more than a half a page in the Podunk Gazette, . Drmies (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it had run in the Daily Planet, it would still be a mention, not significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IceFishing, I assume now that you agree that not all "mentions" are the same. So, now that we have established that there are more and less significant publications and thus more and less significant "mentions", I think we can agree that "mentions", and some of these are much more than that as is argued elsewhere in this AfD, in fact can add to notability if they are in significant publications. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as this appears to be a case of too soon. The organization has received quite a bit of attention for addressing a need within the education and economics communities, which is a good thing. Perhaps in due time new sources that convey the organization's impact will make a better case for notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability guidelines and I'm going to also invoke WP:BASIC on some sources. They also hosted the first conference for Black economists in the United States which got plenty of coverage. Sources include:
 * "Inside the Conference for Black Women Economists" from Ms.
 * "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective" from The Philadelphia Inquirer
 * "‘It Was a Mistake for Me to Choose This Field’: A Survey Lays Bare the Experiences of Black Women in Economics" from The Chronicle for Higher Education
 * "Deep Rooted Structural ‘Violence’ Keeps Black Women Out of Economics" from Forbes (in the article)
 * "Unsung Economists #1: Sadie Alexander" from NPR
 * "U.S. Fed Governor Brainard Talks On 'Increasing Participation' Of Black Women In Economics" from Forbes
 * "FIGHTING UNDERREPRESENTATION IN THE PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSION" from Columbia University
 * Appearance on Hidden Truths with Lisa D. Cook
 * "How the Fed Is Trying to Fix Its White Male Problem" from The New York Times
 * "Economics needs to do more than attract women to solve its gender problem" from Quartz
 * "Making the Case for More Black Women in Economics" from Mathematica at Princeton University
 * "Economics Profession Turns Attention to its ‘Race Problem’" from The Wall Street Journal
 * "Why We Need More Black Women In Economics" The North Star (in article)
 * "Women in Economics: Anna Opoku-Agyeman and Fanta Traore" from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
 * "UMBC students Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman and Olusayo Adeleye co-create 1st U.S. conference for Black women economists" from UMBC News
 * "Economists are discussing their lack of diversity" from The Economist
 * "A Year After a #MeToo Reckoning, Economists Still Grapple With It" from The New York Times
 * "Professions in economics need to dump sexism" from Citizens' Voice
 * "Economics Needs to Dump the Sexism" from Bloomberg News
 * Reading the article headlines is like reading about the lack of diversity and women in Wikipedia both as editors and content. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks --I half-assed my keep a bit, and you went all out. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles in this list came right up when I ran a search. The reason I saw this as a delete is that I kept reading articles that merely name-check the Sadie Collective.  Take the article above in theChronicle of Higher Education: "She knew the landscape and had co-founded the Sadie Collective, an organization dedicated to equipping and empowering black women in economics and related fields."  This is not significant coverage.  User:Missvain, since you have read all of these, could you please pull out the ones that have significant coverage?  Thank you.IceFishing (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Icevishing is correct and you should take a look at those sources again as many are passing mentions, written by the founders, quotes from the founders or contributor pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see TWO sources that are enough to establish notability here: The Philadelphia Inquirer article, and the inclusion of a full episode on this organization in the St. Louis Fed podcast series.--EAWH (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at all of them,, but I looked at a couple. The Economist article, one can say that's little more tha just a namecheck--"Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, a co-founder of the Sadie Collective, an initiative to boost the representation of black women within economics, said..." But the Quartz article offers this, "Anna Opoku-Agyeman, who graduated in May from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and is aspiring to a PhD in economics, has worked hard to create a space for women like her. She set up the Sadie Collective, named after Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander, the first African American woman to get a PhD in economics in the US in 1921. Opoku-Agyeman, who recently turned 23, co-organized a conference in Washington, DC in February, specifically designed to highlight black women economists, and encourage more to join the field." And that is not nothing, it's not trivial. Yes, I'd like more in-depth coverage, but what we have here is a LOT of hits, not all of which mere mentions or name checks. One could argue, BTW, that all these sources provide plenty of material to write up Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (I just created the redirect, because there's enough hits to warrant it). Sure some of these are all-too short and thus not very helpful, but there comes a moment when there is a preponderance of hits, even though some of them fairly light, that add up to notability. I think we're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm the editor who moved the draft into mainspace. I'm surprised this article is so contentious as IMO there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the organisation in sufficient detail to show notability. I'm concerned that there's an element of unconscious bias operating against it as it's an article about Black women. MurielMary (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, the last article I hustled to save from AfD (Midori) was saved probably because of WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MurielMary, I really want to think you are wrong, but who knows. I'm not going to cast stones here, and I think Praxidicae is fair in their dealings, but I can't speak for anyone here except for myself: I am working to recognize and overcome my biases. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * comment and  I'm not sure that when you made this list you did any critical evaluation of the sources or read them thoroughly. As an example, this is a forbes contributor piece and so is this. This is an NPR transcript that talks about Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander who is simply the namesake and has nothing to do with the subject aside from the name and inspiration. We already know she is notable. The rest of that transcript is an interview with it's founder(s). this is about their CFO, mostly based on an interview and written by a student. This is a transcript of an interview by the founder(s). I've already disputed several of the other sources for good reason, so not going to rehash that. I'm afraid that this significantly misses the mark on being independent coverage and would request that anyone reading this actually take it into account. And to say that a student published paper from their alma-mater is independent coverage is grasping at straws. We don't lower the bar of notability just because an organization is doing necessary and meaningful work. I think this will become notable but we shouldn't be hosting articles in the hopes that they will become what we require. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the article in The Economist listed above, another brief mention: "Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, a co-founder of the Sadie Collective, an initiative to boost the representation of black women within economics, said..."(stuff that is not about the Collective).IceFishing (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the burden here is on editors arguing keep. I will be happy to change my opinion if someone shows that there is significant coverage beyond the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask the editors dismissing the notability of the subject because so much of the media coverage has consisted of interviews with the founders to review WP:INTERVIEW: "material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." The founders of this organization were selected for a full length interview by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.  That is not self-promotion--it is selection for promotion by the St. Louis Fed.  Look at this series: https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics. Look how many of the other women interviewed have Wikipedia pages (I've written or contributed to Wikipedia pages for several of them, and so I believe this is a list of notable women in the Wikipedia sense of the word). The St. Louis Fed selected the founders of the Sadie Collective for their podcast on prominent women in economics.  WP:INTERVIEW makes it clear that counts towards establishing notability.
 * No, WP:INTERVIEW does not mean that it can substantiate notability in the absence of other independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERVIEW explicitly states, "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." I think we've all agreed now that the Philadelphia Inquirer story is ONE independent reliable source with significant coverage. The St. Louis Fed interview ADDS A SECOND contribution towards establishing notability.--EAWH (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. There are 0 other independent sources. Contributing to the idea is not actually contributing to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment for reviewer Please consider using WP:BASIC to assist with establishing notability for inclusion and the following sources provide significant coverage: .. Please note, this organization, as I said above, created and host (annually) the ONLY economics conference for African American women in the world, that's pretty significant on its own (even though I know that does not automatically mean they should be included in Wikipedia, but it is historically significant in a field where 2% of Black women graduate with economics degrees. The conference is also known as the Sadie T.M. Alexander Conference for Economics and Related Fields which I suggest gets redirected to a section in the Sadie Collective article. Also, regarding a comment in the nomination, The North Star (anti-slavery newspaper) is a reliable secondary source. The North Star was founded by Frederick Douglass in 1847 and in 2019, Shaun King relaunched the publication with the blessing of Douglass' family. (I am bias, I did donate to help re-launch the publication which focuses on social justice). I do think, given the fact that this AfD has triggered a lot of conversation, something generally unseen for organizations of this size and caliber, WP:BIAS could be something of concern here. That is a growing pain for Wikipedia, as it is for society as a whole. Thanks again for your consideration. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP has a bias problem but we are not here to right great wrongs. As far as the links you've provided, please see my earlier assessment of these sources on the talk page, user talk page, and several deleted drafts. Almost all of your new sources are not independent - they are interviews or mentions of Sadie Collective. And I'll highlight what I said already, it's just too soon for this article. I feel that they will eventually receive the required coverage, just not yet Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Missvain, Can you help us out here, with regard to the 5 references you bring as reliable, significant coverage?
 * Everyone agrees that the Philadelphia Inquirer article is a reliable source.
 * Mathematica hosted hits  the Sadie Collective conference, making it a PRIMARY source.
 * Ms. (magazine). Do you or does anyone reading this know whether this is an opinion column or a news story under the control of an editor?
 * This is yet another Sadie Collective conference, hence: PRIMARY
 * The North Star appears to be a website named after the old abolitionist newspaper.  Can you explain why you regard it as a reliable source? IceFishing (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments above about The North Star. Did you listen to the Mathematica podcast? It's about the Sadie Collective and the conference. It is a secondary source. The Ms. piece is not an editorial or oped. It is a new story under control of the editor. I know the editor there, I can gladly reach out if you're desperate to confirm. Finally, review prior comments by other editors, the St. Louis Fed may "appear" a primary source but the Sadie Collective was featured by the Reserve Bank in their Women in Economics podcast. It was the first podcast in the country devoted to women in economics. The podcast is not a primary source. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The great puzzle here continues to be why this interesting Collective has not garnered significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeating that a ton of times doesn't make it more true. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am no longer going to participate in this conversation because it's making my blood boil, so no need to tag me in comments anymore. Nothing personal, I just can't devote hours of my life to defending one AfD and I'm feeling exhausted. I appreciate everyone's good faith efforts and I hope the AfD reviewer will examine all presented information and decide fairly - with explanation. Thanks again everyone. Missvain (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I shan't ping you, but thank you for your research, Miss vain. There are other Wikipedia adventures in store for me as well, so I too shall bow out. I hope one day The Sadie Collective receives attention for all it strives to be. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

*Keep those, together with the Quartz coverage found by Drmies, put it over the hurdle, imho.IceFishing (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Withdraw. Sources really are very thin.IceFishing (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The Philadelphia Inquirer and Ms. items are independent and in-depth. I have no information about the editorial process at the North Star, but the author of the piece there is a writer who's been reviewed in the LA Review of Books and in academic journals, so that item can't really be dismissed either. As far as interviews go, the content that a subject says about themselves ought to be treated as primary-source material, but being selected for an interview can indicate the "wider world" paying attention, and I believe that applies here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability established through substantial, independent coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer, Ms., and The North Star; additional mentions and coverage in NYT and WSJ etc. also validate the coverage found. I agree with Missvain above that the St. Louis Fed interview is also a secondary source per WP:INTERVIEW, which either way could be used to improve the article, whether it's deemed necessary to establish notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - BASIC notability is met as per the sources found that are noted above. Article could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: "WP:BASIC", mysteriously incorrectly cited twice, is about biographies, not organization articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable group. Missvain located quite a few sources. Passes GNG and WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 31 January 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.