Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uju Anya


 * 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. While on a pure nose count this would be right on the border of "no consensus", the BLP1E concerns here put this here, at least for now. This is a case where things certainly might be reconsidered after some time has passed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Uju Anya

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

Not even a full professor. Google Scholar index of 7. There are multiple non-notable professors in third world countries, such as Nigeria that have higher numbers, but are not notable. Fails WP:NPROF. Most of the sources are centered around her sensationalist comment about Queen Elizabeth 2. I don't think Wikipedia was created for such. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Nigeria.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Anya is an academic in the United States, a first world country. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Anya is a associate professor at Carnegie Melon, so statement about third world countries is irrelevant. That said, I agree that she is non-notable on Academic grounds and fails general notability (WP:BIO). Her comment about Queen Elizabeth is the only reason she has gained attention. I think a better place for this information is the Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II page, especially as there have been many reactions on social media criticizing the monarch's role in colonialism. Basically, her response is notable, not her biography. Beebotbaba (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass criteria WP:ACADEMIC. The claim to fame is a single purposefully controversial tweet. If there was substantial commentaries in various media on a longer period of time, the subject could meet criterium 7 but we are far from it. Other criteria on academic productivity (e.g. criterium 1) do not seem to pass the threshold even for a low citation field https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Vk9BjUwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
 * JamesKH76 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually, her GS shows she has about the same # citations as Vicky Forster (GS). For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with PROF notability guidelines, but came to realize a while back that there are numerous BLPs happily existing on WP that flagrantly violate these guidelines. Those articles actually constitute the de facto notability standard, as it actually exists in practice. I've discussed this view at length in several places, e.g. Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Thorpe-Moscon, and will not weigh-in further here. Thanks. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a strange argument when Vicky Forster has been tagged for notability since July. There is no consensus that Forster is notable. And that leaves aside the WP:OTHERSTUFF problem. Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:BLP1E to Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II where there is a paragraph about her comments with four sources. There are other sources that could potentially be added, e.g. CBS News Sept. 8, 2022, Independent Sept. 9, 2022, Buzzfeed News, Sept. 11, 2022, Guardian, Sept. 14, 2022. Beyond this one event, she appears to otherwise be a low-profile individual, e.g. according to the coverage from The Guardian. On the WP Library, I found citations for reviews of her book (Nicholas Cheadle. (2019). Book review: Uju Anya, Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. Discourse & Society, 30, 325–327; Yi Wang. (2020). Anya, U. (2016). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 32, 191–194; Dessein, E. (2019). Uju Anya Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil; London 254. System, 87). There is also brief coverage of her commentary in The Daily Beast in 2020 (via Gale), and The Australian in 2021 (via Gale) and a lot more coverage of her recent commentary. On Proquest, there is a several-graf press release profile of her education and academic career in Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Online); "Uju Anya Wins First Book Award From the American Association for Applied Linguistics" (Mar 29, 2019) and Women in Academia Report (Mar 28, 2019). It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPROF, but there seems to be potential for an article in the future as her career develops. Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A controversial tweet is all she is known for. Reli source (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I was going to write the article myself but never got around to publishing it. People are predictably (and I have to roll my eyes at it 😒) more focused on a “mean tweet”, which 2 weeks later no one cares about, and ignoring the fact that she easily meets the criteria of notability for professors. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. She wrote an academic book that won an award. Carnegie Mellon is not the only institution of which she has been a professor if people bothered to do a before. Trillfendi (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I noted the award above in my summary of research, but the first book award from the American Association for Applied Linguistics is not similar to the types of prestigious awards described at WP:NPROF#2, so it does not help show she clears the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? described in the NPROF General notes. I was hoping to find book reviews for the book she co-edited to help show support for WP:AUTHOR notability, and I would be open to changing my !vote if stronger sourcing can be found to support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She wrote an academic book that won an award. Come on...that's obviously not sufficient for NPROF #2. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that over 4,000 academics from around the country and around the world signed a open letter for Anya with the consensus that: The signees — a mix of academics and alumni from various institutions in the U.S. and beyond — say Ms. Anya is a highly accomplished scholar and a force for diversity, equity and inclusion in the field of linguistics. per Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Petition itself) is more than enough reason for me to say Keep. Trillfendi (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete, per Beccaynr's analysis. Far too soon for her to meet NPROF, so notability now would have to be achieved through GNG coverage, and that is solidly in the BLP1E arena. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will present the best keep case that I can see.  The brouhaha with the tweet got a spike in coverage, but looks like a WP:BLP1E situation.  The one authored book with at least a handful of reviews  is probably weakly notable per WP:BOOKCRIT.  Together, one might make the case for a WP:BLP2E.  The early career award doesn't contribute much to notability; the _coverage_ of the petition counts towards GNG notability, subject to BLP1E concerns; the citations are a respectable start towards WP:NPROF C1 in what I believe is usually a "book field", but short of what I'd look for even in a low-citation field; no other sign of WP:NPROF notability.  However, that there seem to be two possible redirect targets (Reactions to death of Queen Elizabeth, and the book) gives me a little pause before a redirect !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (To be be clear, I am somewhat skeptical of the case I make above, which is why I leave it as a comment only for the time being.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender,  and Pennsylvania. TJMSmith (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uju Anya meets Wikipedia's academicy notability standard by having received "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Per the guidelines, that one award is enough to prove notability. But in addition to that a search on the Wikipedia library shows a number of citations, book reviews and coverage of Anya's work prior to the coverage around her comments on Queen Elizabeth. This includes coverage of her award, reviews of her work in places like Discourse & Society, and coverage of her comments on social matters in places like the Daily Beast and CNN. Anya more than satisifies Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The assertion of notability here for a "first book" award from a niche academic society is not objectively supported by corresponding national or international coverage that demonstrates it is similar to a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize, per NPROF. There are press releases about her award reprinted in two journals noted above, but this is not independent coverage that helps support notability.
 * She also received brief sensationalized coverage for her recent comments, which was not a significant event with lasting impacts. Brief quotes previously reported in the Daily Beast, The Australian, and CNN are not substantial coverage about her nor sufficient for NPROF#7, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area - and CNN describes her as a Twitter user, not an academic. As to the three reviews that have been found, I appreciate the analysis by above, and if there is an article for her reviewed book, would favor a redirect to that article. Beccaynr (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The American Association for Applied Linguistics is hardly a "niche academic society." Instead, it is a major linguistic organization that has been around for nearly 50 years. And per Notability (academics), an award doesn't have to be a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize to qualify. If that was the case we'd have very few biography articles on Wikipedia. Instead, the guidelines state the award must be a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." This award definitely qualifies as that.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , the book award is however an early career award (for _first_ book), which we generally not consider as contributing much to NPROF notability. Such an award is given more for promise than for impact. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's focused on American practitioners of a subfield of linguistics, that's pretty niche. Even looking only at senior-career awards, we would have many thousands more biographies if we included all winners from all academic societies, but the vast majority of these awards are clearly not the caliber of recognition NPROF or ANYBIO requires. This is even more true for early-career awards, which (with the exception of mid-career awards like the Fields Medal that have long been acknowledged as a top international honor across all math) basically by definition cannot be considered sufficiently "highly prestigious" since they automatically exclude everyone who has already made a sizable impact in a field. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My read of an assertion "Per the guidelines, that one award is enough to prove notability" is per WP:NPROF#2 For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2, so I attempted to compare the type of award and did not ever suggest that only Nobels or Pulitzers qualify. To clarify my previous comment, this award does not appear to be similar to awards described in NPROF#2, and I could not otherwise find support for its notability, and therefore the award does not appear sufficient to support an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per above. This professor's contributions to her field of study are meager at best. She received attention based on her flagrant comments concerning the Queen's death and not much else. Not much going for her to create a page. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per GNG and WP:BLP2E as I have laid out above. The subject is mainly notable for the coverage of the mean tweet, which falls squarely in WP:BLP1E and 15 minutes of fame territory.  She is also the author of a notable book, and the reviews of that bring me to a (very) weak keep.  Redirection to Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II is sadly probably the best alternative to deletion at this time: the coverage that she got over the tweet was pretty substantial.  With a second book, I expect that the subject will have a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR (without combination with the "mean tweet" coverage).  I see some limited progress towards WP:NPROF but no pass of that criteria.  In particular, early career awards, such as those issues for first books, are given for promise rather than impact, and do not pass WP:NPROF C2.  Her citations are unusually strong for a "book field", and she may eventually pass WP:NPROF C1 (but does not yet).  But passing one notability criteria is enough for a keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect Very early career, non-notable as an academic. The AAAL First Book Award is interesting and if combined with a stronger academic record she may have been notable, but it a first book award, in the linguistics field, in her own field. The tweet I've not seen nor heard of, which makes the thing forgettable and i've forgotten about it already. I think with the book and the award there is big things coming but I think it too early in the day for an article. Without the tweet there wouldn't have been an article. WP:TOOSOON.    scope_creep Talk  10:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While she may fail WP:NPROF, the sources cited by others above indicate she passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Her book has been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's all we need to establish notability under the author guideline.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR#3 says in addition to multiple reviews, the work should be significant or well-known. The reviews help support WP:NBOOK notability, but more is needed to support notability for the author. Beccaynr (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the award the book won demonstrates significance sufficiently to pass criteria 3.4meter4 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 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.