- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Yesomi Umolu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC all of the sources used are primary, ie interviews with the subject or content based on press releases from the subject or the organisations that they work for. There is no in-depth independent coverage offereing both the criticism and analysis required for a Wikipedia article. Ferkingstad ( talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG through in-depth, reliable, and independent coverage of the subject already used as references in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:GNG NHCLS ( talk) 09:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, there is sufficient sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain a encylopedic article on Umolu. I have some concerns over the repeated use of the same text (apparently based on a press release about the Serpentine Gallery appointment) : "I am eager to partner with the Serpentine’s team, its audiences, and artists to envision new forms of creativity and community building that can shepherd us through the profound change facing our city and the world at large." in [1], [2] and [3], but it is common practise for news media to refer to statements from the subject of their coverage. As long as the cited source is not a quick rewrite of the press release, it isn't necessarily wrong to use a press release as the basis for a news article. We reject standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, but the coverage of Umolu is not trivial. There exists critical commentary on her curatorial work and her writing that has not been cited in the article, https://www.artforum.com/architecture/david-huber-on-the-2019-chicago-architecture-biennial-80969https://hyperallergic.com/594683/this-is-what-i-know-about-art-by-kimberly-drew/ and https://hyperallergic.com/267908/six-west-african-artists-mine-the-material-world/ for example. Vexations ( talk) 19:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, passes GNG based on coverage on reliable sources.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see [4]). pburka ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2021 (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.