Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Sidika


 * 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the coverage is reliable and significant enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vera Sidika

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails the notability criterion; article more of a promotional text than anything. Sources cited belong strictly to gossip outlets. The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (and hopefully as soon as possible) —Мандичка YO 😜 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even the most cursory of google searches (nevermind WP:BEFORE) returns hundreds of thousands of hits (more than 4k in Google News alone). Many articles call her "Kenya's Kim Kardashian". Some from the first few pages of hits: BBC, New York Post's Page Six, 32 pages of articles tagged with "Vera Sidika" at Ghalfa, Buzz Kenya, 6 pages of articles tagged at Nairobi Wire, Black America Web, Naij, Pulse, Clutch Magazine, 2 pages of articles at The Net, Gossip News Africa, Sahan Journal, Nairobi News, Medical Daily, Afro Parazi, Eurweb, AllAfrica...
 * According to Google's Year in Search 2014 (mentioned in AllAfrica here), Vera Sidika was one of Kenya's leading searches. Also says she "was the top trending person in 2014" (I don't know if that's Google, Twitter, or what).
 * This is a class example of current article content being really poor, but the subject very clearly notable (I don't even know how notability could be the basis for this nom). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt to check for background before proposing a deletion on the basis of lack of notability. For what it's worth, and not surprisingly, the same results you listed above were returned in my search and I found them almost all within the category of gossip columns. (Yes, even the BBC has gossip aplenty! They're "getting with the times", presumably.) I believe that self-promotion can be accepted as justification for a Wikipedia BLP only if it reaches critical mass in mainstream media, as in the case of Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Otherwise, every "trending" topic or any "top google search" is fair game. Wikipedia's rules state that "persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Notice that having a "high profile" due to self-sοught media attention does not make one necessarily  notable. But I could be mistaken. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient information and references Shad Innet (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by, including in the BBC and Ghafla!. Though as The Gnome notes, many of the sources in the Google search are gossip, there is enough coverage from reputable sources to establish notability. That the subject was covered by the BBC, a well respected news source not known for being a gossip publication, strongly indicates that she is notable. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vera Sidika to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2015 (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.