Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nana Wanjau

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. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Wanjau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here:^[1][2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DaffodilOcean I think you should link Gale to Gale (publisher) instead of gale (a kind of wind). Toadspike [Talk] 10:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one (link here) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You may be able to access Gale databases through your local public library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: let's not ignore the fact that internet sources in Africa are scarcer than in Europe or the US. A lot of media outlets there generate online content mainly on social networks which we would normally avoid (just one example: an interview on a major TV network there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources to meet the GNG. I don't like they focus so much on the subject's charitable work, almost making them puff pieces, but I doubt they are paid and they clearly consitute significant coverage. @Dclemens1971, you can access both newspaper articles DaffodilOcean cited through the Wikipedia Library. Hopefully these links work: [1][2]. Alternatively, you can just search for the titles (without any punctuation marks) at this search page. The second one is clearly not an interview – for the first one it's debatable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 26 June 2024 (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.