Achieng Akena: This article is essentially a CV/list of accomplishments sourced to sources that just document her activities.  No sources from what I can see that discuss the significance of her or her work.   Likely paid editing(at least recently, perhaps not initially).  331dot ( talk ) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law ,  and Kenya .  331dot ( talk ) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait a minute!  I found myself on Wikipedia and decided to fill in the blanks as it was sparse.  Is there any particular reason why you feel I do not deserve to be mentioned.  I have simply followed the template of my peers like Jackie Assimwe.  It is not fair to delete the entry rather than simply suggest how I can remove any parts you find offensive.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 09:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying that you are Achieng Akena?   Please tell how you came to take this image of yourself .  331dot ( talk ) 09:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not put myself in it.  I just thought to update it and copy pasted from existing material.  There are far too few African women on Wikipedia for you to suggest such a drastic measure instead of simply suggesting edits.  Further, I was trying to cure the problem of "primary sources" that was on there which indicated that sources could be the person themselves, if I understood it correctly.  I registered as AfroUpdates because the site warned me that my IP address could be seen.  Before that I did the edits as myself as I had no ill intention as you seem to suggest.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, you must go to Commons and immediately request deletion of the image that you have falsely claimed is your own personal work.  A video capture from an interview with you would belong to whomever filmed the interview.  The other thing that you could do(which is much harder) is demonstrate that the video was released with a copyright permitting use for any purpose(including commerical) with attribution.  Next, please be aware of the autobiography policy .   While not absolutely forbidden, editing about yourself is highly discouraged.  Edits should be proposed as edit requests instead.  Regarding the article itself, it is a nice summary of your work- but that's not what we are looking for to establish that you are notable as Wikipedia defines the term .  Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about your work and its importance/significance/influence.   Such souces cannot include basic profiles(especially from organizations you are associated with), interviews, annoucements, press releases, or the like, which seems to be what the sources in this article are.  331dot ( talk ) 09:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, let me begin by stating that it is my first day as a Wikipedia editor, so sorry if I am not familiar with all your policies.  But as far as I can read, it is within your policies to encourage both women and African entries to reduce the obvious inequalities on your site.  Secondly, let me emphasise that part of the reason for this inequality is because we do not have the luxury of "paid editors" - at least I have never personally met one and so many people do not get the recognition they deserve.  Whoever it was that put my entry in (maybe check with them) obviously thought I was deserving of a mention, I just assumed they did not have sufficient information about me and took it upon myself to furnish details.  Thirdly nothing that I have added is false, they are all facts about me.  The picture I posted is not from a video, it is a picture of me doing making a video that was captured by a friend.  But I am happy to delete it if it so offends your sensibilities.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 10:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My sensibilities are not the issue- improper copyright is, as improper copyrights potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy.  If your friend took the image, you could have the friend re-upload it as the photographer, that would resolve the issue.  We do need more coverage of both women and Africans- but this coverage must be in keeping with our polices.  As I state above, the sources currently are not appropriate for establishing that you meet our definition of notability.  If you think it is possible that appropriate sources, that chose on their own to write about you and your significance, exist, I would be happy to relocate the article to Draft space where it can be worked on and submitted for a review with no time constraints(as long as the draft is actively being worked on, at least once every six months).  331dot ( talk ) 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have read you recommendation that "Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about your work" and gone to look at the profile of Amina Mohamed, UN Deputy Secretary General, and it mostly provides references to her bio, and speeches she has made, etc.  So it seems to me that your interpretation "our policies" has more to do with your feelings that I am undeserving of mention, rather than a genuine desire to maintain rules.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 10:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they choose to do, when they choose to do it.   This can result in inconsistency as to how policies are applied, but that cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate content, see other stuff exists .  As such, each article or draft is considered on its own merits.  We have millions of articles but only thousands of regular editors(of varying regularity).  I can't say as to if you are "undeserving" of a mention or not, I am only saying that what is present currently doesn't establish that you are, and there doesn't seem to be other sources that do, though I'm certainly not aware of every source on this planet.   As I said, if you think proper sources exist, the article can be made a draft.  You don't even need to provide them right now.  331dot ( talk ) 10:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly, you have a conflict of interest and I'd advise you to avoid personal attacks if you're intending to fix the article.  @ 331dot merely requested that the article be deleted, because, at the time, it was highly promotional of you.  ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 13:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are only seeing half of the conversation.  I do not know enough about this space to understand why the two conversations appear differently.  I am not a regular editor.  @ 331dot began by accusing me of impropriety when I was trying to update the article and provide the said references, and insisted I stop immediately.  He accused me of being an "undisclosed paid contributor" and that is why he initially flagged the entry for deletion.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 08:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I first came across my entry it had the " This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it " and that is what I sought to do by adding additional references as appropriate.  As I was working on it @ 331dot marked it for deletion and asked me to stop and not to edit anymore.  Now you say the references are not sufficient.  AfroUpdates ( talk ) 08:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you feel that article does not meet guidelines here, please nominate it for deletion.  Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Briefly quoted in several articles (including the Voice of America used in the article), this is also typical [29] .  Nothing extensive found about this person.  Decline for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This article is severely WP:REFBOMBed but going through many of them I find the same as Oaktree.  They are primary , his statements or brief mentions.  None of them meet WP:GNG .  S0091 ( talk ) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk ) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments .  I am not going to ! vote on this, but we need to address that the newbies of 2024 are very different from those of 2007.  Everybody knows what Wikipedia is, and what you should not do.  I'll leave it at that.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:09, 26 February 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.

Discussion outcome: delete