Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A’shanti Gholar

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. Thanks for clarifying the double voting and canvassing Bishonen - that makes concensus much clearer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A’shanti Gholar

A’shanti Gholar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief mentions or primary support. Lacks significant secondary support. reddogsix (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the problems stated. This is a notable person who regular appears on behalf of a national organization in places like Rolling Stone, NBC News, etc., and should have their own page. Plantlady223 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - To me it is clear A’shanti Gholar is notable from reading these pages: https://www.netrootsnation.org/profile/ashanti-gholar/ (http://trumanproject.org/home/team-view/ashanti-gholar/). I also find more then enough citations like the ones already given and more. No reason at all to delete this page. Madhu Gopal (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This is hardly in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have provided extensive citations from many notable sites including Rolling Stones, NBC News, CBC news, various newspapers, Politico, and more. I think it's very well established that she deserves a small entry. This was the version I thought deserved to stay, but it appears it's been added to again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A%E2%80%99shanti_Gholar&oldid=821485690 What does everyone think of reverting back to this version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Unfortunately, the items you indicated are far from in-depth, non-trivial support. (e.g., politico = a birthday listing and the text, "A’shanti Gholar, DNC alum now political director for Emerge America..." BTW - I could not find a the CBS reference you made reference to. reddogsix (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. When I wrote CBS, I meant CBC. This is what the entry is proposed to say: "A’shanti Fayshel Gholar is a Democratic American activist serving as the Political Director of Emerge America, a national non-profit organization that trains female candidates to run for political offices, and regularly appears and speaks on its behalf. Gholar was a director of outreach at the Democratic National Committee until 2016." Gholar has received press coverage from a significant number of notable websites regarding these aspects of her political work. According to Wikipedia: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." She certainly has been published in multiple reliable secondary sources that have been cited and support the content of the article. It goes on to say, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's definitely been accomplished here. These are just some the sources that have interviewed, mentioned, quoted or otherwise noted her and in regards to her political work: Rolling Stone, NBC News, MSN.com, CBC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, Politico, Buzzfeed, and Detroit News. No primary sources are being used to prove notability. According to that same article on Wikipedia: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable." Lonehexagon (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It's been well-established on this page that Gholar is notable enough for the article that was created about her. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is for the closing admin to decide. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's my first time going through this process. I appreciate your help. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and try to bring policy based reasons from there to support keeping this article if you can find any. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support keeping article Gholar has received press coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that have been cited and support the content of the article. There have been concerns that the coverage on each page is not substantial. According to Wikipedia: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's been accomplished here. These are some the cited sources that have interviewed, mentioned, quoted or otherwise noted Gholar in regards to the topics covered in the article: Rolling Stone, NBC News, MSN.com, CBC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, Politico, Buzzfeed, and Detroit News, among others. According to that same article on Wikipedia: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable." Lonehexagon (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable according to our criteria, as there is no in-depth nor truly independent sourcing. I note that Lonehexagon is the creator of the article, and that they canvassed Madhu Gopal to come here.[1] Of course there is nothing wrong with the creator commenting, but calling others here to support is improper, as it skews the discussion. Also, Plantlady223, above, is the former username of Lonehexagon. Lonehexagon, I understand you used the Plantlady name on January 20, just before your namechange, and that you had no bad intent in using both in the same discussion. However, it made your support look like it came from two people. Please be careful to avoid that. Also, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. I should have stated the name change clearly on here, or updated all the instances on this page to be the new one. I didn't realize I had been both on the same page. I also didn't realize what canvassing was, and I am glad you pointed me to that article. I only recently started editing on Wikipedia, and I've learned a lot in the last several weeks about being a good editor. I take the rules very seriously and I appreciate the education. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

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.