Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Busheska

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Busheska

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copied into main space from declined draft Draft:Angela Busheska. Draft was declined for relying on primary sources. This version should be draftified/deleted so that only one version of article exists and it is not ready for main space WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on primary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
7,8,12 and 17 are in depth reviews 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these "30 under 30 lists" aren't notable, rest of the awards are trivial. A strong student perhaps, but nothing we need for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official Forbes list 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and it's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one thing is maybe the country, if you take a look most of the activists are US / West Europe centered Wiki121121121 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not all of these sources are primary, two of the articles in Macedonian (refs 7 and 8) are more in-depth coverage of Busheska. Ref 7 was published the year before she was named to the Forbes list. ~~~~ (sorry, signature was lost on that comment) DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12 and 17 are not primary as well. 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

says the 3-edit spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - while she is young, her recognition extends beyond the Forbes list, e.g., the Diana Award. There are young climate activists participating in global discussions, and she appears to be one of them. There are multiple news articles in the Macedonian press covering Busheska. I have added these (non-primary) sources to the article, and removed some of the primary ones that were in the prior version. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is one more notable award: https://explorer-directory.nationalgeographic.org/angela-busheska 209.40.95.241 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not helping this discussion with links to the websites. Do you examples of news articles talking about her? DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undergraduates are almost never notable. The trendiness of climate activism in the last 10 years has drawn a large cadre of people, so simply "participating in global discussions" is not terribly notable. There's also no convincing claim to notability in the lede. This is a SPA-created article that was born less than 2 hours after its creating account appeared and the initial version of the article was highly-detailed with obscure, unsourced biosketch information. It is almost certainly a vanity autobio. 128.252.154.8 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is another one, just three people are chosen each year by Nico Rosberg: https://greentechfestival.com/awards/ 209.40.95.241 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several new or low-edit-tally accounts responding here with additional sources that do not actually further the case for keeping, for example the "Green Tech Festival" one here. At least one is an IP from school that the subject of this article attends. If the responder is the same person as the subject of this article, my advice would be to refrain from further input and just let the debate play-out. 128.252.172.8 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, regarding the "Selected publications" section, conference papers in mechanical engineering are not notable in the conventional way that they are in computer science. Refereed journal articles are what count. Moreover, "Selected publications" is usually used to highlight a short list of the most interesting or impactful papers for people who've compiled a very long publication record. Having that sort of section here for an undergraduate feels like it's trying too hard. 128.252.172.8 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since she does not meet any NPROF criteria, she must be evaluated via GNG. The sources are still almost entirely primary news announcements, passing mentions, or non-independent.

source analysis

1 is her student newspaper N. #2 is a release from her university N. # 3 (first Inovatinost article) is directly from Lafayette N. # 4 (second Inovatinost) reads like promo for her app and is of uncertain provenance, but regardless does not contain much secondary coverage N. #5 is a plea for fundraising with no independent coverage of Busheska N. #6 is a passing mention + quote in a recap of Macedonian Olympiad results N. #7 is an announcement/interview on her inclusion on the We are Family Foundation list, and apart from a couple sentences is entirely quotes or coverage of her app N. #8, 9, and 10 are announcements from/profiles by awarding orgs N. #11 and 14 are coverage by the event organizer of an event she participated in N. #12 is an announcement for the Youth Climate Summit that has a single sentence mentioning she will participate N. #13 is a brief mention + quote about her participation in an online debate N. #15 is from her school N. #16 is a mention in a list of awardees from a press release {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.. #17 is a brief award announcement in what appears to be an unreliable tabloid-like source N. #18 is a short blurb on her from an org she participates in {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.. {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.#19 is her profile on Forbes N. #20 is an interview from the same outlet as #18 and contains very little independent info.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not meeting any criteria, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" Citations101 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.