Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Ryder

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ryder

[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)

Very questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [1], [2],[3]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Junior (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: <~~/"keep">~~ this article has been edited to comply to NPOV since it's nomination allied by a declaration of COI from editors in the View AfD the page in its current existence complies with NPOV User:Gold Junior Talk 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia:Deletion policy Number 7 states article can be deleted of it has no reliable sources. this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Ryder was edited by User:DaffodilOcean adding multiple reliable sources with encyclopedic knowledge highlighting the article notability across the spectrum of Africa-China economic trade. User:Gold Junior Talk 02:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further opinions from as-yet uninvolved editors regarding the quality of sourcing available would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's mentioned in a broad range of reliable sources, many cited in the article including the BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post. The mentions are usually brief, but these three secondary sources at least offer brief bios to base an article:[4][5][6] Also, the article was almost entirely rewritten after its nomination. The writing has issues, but the subject seems notable. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 2 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.