Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Ignoring the canvassed votes, and discounting those who proposed deletion based on the promotional tone (a cleanup issue, not a deletion rationale!), we're still left with a consensus to delete, on the basis of poor sourcing. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

edit

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

Zoe Gardner (migration expert) (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)

All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[1] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations" Where she works already comes up on every article about her lol. Why would I need a Wikipedia page for this? Tweedle (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
  • Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
    • ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
  • Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.

Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject seems to have expertise in migration and policy, as evidenced by her education and the experience detailed in the article. This is supported by the citations, which often involve news outlets seeking or highlighting the subject's thoughts on these topics, e.g. "Asylum aid charity: Migrant crisis 'disgraceful'". BBC News. 30 July 2015. and Morrison, Hamish (22 February 2023). "Asylum expert Zoe Gardner schools Jonathan Gullis on why refugees come to UK". The National. The article could be better written but that's not a reason to delete. Nnev66 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not useful for establishing WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say anything in WP:SIGCOV about interviews not counting? Although I agree the BBC one probably wouldn't for notability I think it's evidence of expertise (or why would they interview her?) I would also count the PRWeek 30 under 30 article (yes, references like these are a bit promotional but I'd still count it). In addition to The National reference noted above, the following references in the article also have more significant coverage:
    Nnev66 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Thomson Reuters article is not WP:SIGCOV of Gardner -- it provides sigcov of the migration issue and quote her incidentally to her work. That's WP:ROUTINE. The Sussex Bylines piece is an WP:INTERVIEW; its content is entirely sourced to Gardner herself and thus is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I meant notability. TarnishedPathtalk 01:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the WP:INTERVIEW link as I hadn't seen that - it reads to me that interviews are OK if the interviewer is an established journalist or at least independent of the subject. I don't know Sussex Bylines so can't tell what the situation is there. I tend to include articles for notability that have at least a few sentences about the person provided there are multiple other sources, which there appear to be here. This one may be an edge case in that regard. Nnev66 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted delete on the original listing and I'd just like to clarify my vote now that this has been relisted. As far as I understand this is basically a spokesperson for a few NGOs (most notably Asylum aid and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), who has had some occasional past media coverage as part of her role as a spokesperson for an NGO. Seems pretty clear to me that this is non-notable, unless we should start creating articles for every spokesperson on the basis they they've appeared in some media coverage as part of their job. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be blogs (Brexit Spot), or paid PR opportunities (30 under 30 - you buy a listing in these, its like a 'best european xyz') and are commercial work, aimed to promote the media career of Zoe Gardner. The one or two non-blog / podcast sources, a single mention in Thompson Reuters and one Huffington Post article, do not meet the criteria for significance. Zoe is not an academic - she hasn't finished her PhD, and appears to have no cited publications. So she is not an academic expert, and neither do most early career academics have wikipedia pages. She has appeared once or twice in the press as a talking head, mostly in extremely small blogs that do not meet the thresholds for significance or realiability. Some of these 'sussex news'? appear to be miniscule local blogs.
I appreciate the points about new users recommending deletion, but I do not see how in this case any other decision could be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and shouldn't exist to promote media careers that are not already well established, especially not with misleading language which implies Zoe is an academic expert or has published books on the topic. I do not see any compelling arguments to keep the article.
Regarding PamD's points about the creator of the article having made many edits - if you look through them, they are all of early stage professionals, actors, media figures and so on, and the institutions they work for. They are clearly working on an agency basis, dealing with little known authors, actors and media commentators. A thorough review of recent edits makes the commercial nature of their work obvious. I do not think this is a credible argument to keep the article, which is clearly suspect. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean just look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stacey_Halls
He is leaving draft articles online to show to clients to confirm they are happy with them. He's even left 'draft' in the title! This is blatant commercial misuse of Wikipedia by a media professional. All of these articles should be closely reviewed. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut As you have only been an editor since 21 August you may not be familiar with the concept of "Draft", which is a standard way in which many editors choose to work on an article before it is ready for "main space". See WP:DRAFT for more information. Your accusation that @Starklinson: is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious WP:Personal attack. I invite them to respond to it here, and suggest that you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices before accusing any other editors of malpractice. PamD 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PamD:. I would like to reiterate – I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia and nor have I ever made a page as a favour. I was recently invited by @Ipigott: to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red because I happen to create a lot of biographies of women. My recent focus has been on writers (particularly in the UK), though I don't limit myself to any one topic. Starklinson (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see your very first edits involved a similar argument over an (eventually deleted?) page for a minor YouTuber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safiya_Nygaard_(2nd_nomination) - you have since continued to work almost exclusively on pages for minor media figures, both men and women. Regardless of whether this is a bizarre labour of love or paid work, Zoe's page does not include enough relevant, high-quality sources, she appears to hold no important public position, and is not widely known despite a few brief media appearances. The article, particularly but not only in its describing her as an 'expert', is written in a promotional style. It would not be out of place in a corporate biography or Linkedin page. The most substantial source, 'Sussex Byline', does not even have its own wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to give every early career think tank employee in the UK their own wikipedia page. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept assessing the article on its own merit, I do not accept WP:Personal attacks. Pulling up one of the first articles a user ever worked on over 6 years ago (the subject of which now has a Wikipedia page anyway) is not an argument and not how Wikipedia works. The vast majority of the articles I create get approved without issue, and the handful that didn't have not interfered with my ability to edit long term.
In addition, most Wikipedia editors do it as a hobby, or there wouldn't be rules about payment.
As @PamD: said, you seem to be making assumptions that certain things – like working on drafts until they're ready for publication, for example – are a problem.
I have also already said I'm okay with changing the title to something like (researcher). I'd assumed it was impartial enough given Category:Experts on refugees exists, but I'm not fussed about it either way. Starklinson (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut You are very new to Wikipedia, at least as a registered editor. You seem not to understand that the whole thing is indeed "a bizarre labour of love". We editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, by creating and editing articles (though a small minority seem to be here with the sole purpose of getting one article deleted). And recent page creations will tend to be for early-career people, as the long-established notable people in a field should already have articles. Hence many new articles are created for 20-year-old footballers, far fewer for those who've been playing professionally for 10 years. PamD 10:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources appear to be blogs she receives WP:SIGCOV from the BBC[2], Channel 4 news [3], The National [[4] and Huff Post [5]. Orange sticker (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have attached the same Channel 4 section on 3 times, please adjust two of your links. HuffPost on Political matters is 'No Consensus', so that cannot be used to demonstrate notability. That just leaves three 'major sources' left. The BBC is a two minute segment and is just about her talking about related migratory issues, not about her specifically which does not make it useful enough to qualify for an article. The Channel 4 4min segment is fine maybe (I have not really looked at that am being generous) as justification. For The National, the real subject matter of this one is Jonathan Gullis (which would be best on his page) and his claims as the article would not exist on it's own without that, not Zoe Gardner in of herself to justify it as worthy of her article's inclusion (this also applies to the HuffPost). I would only really consider a good source which would be of near noteworthiness is the article entirely on her by Sussex Bylines, but that's another question as to whether or not your accept them as noteworthy. Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the reasons given here by others and at the very, very least the "migration expert" title should be removed. This person has not published anything of their own and they don't appear in Google Scholar which should at least be a some sort of a prerequisite for being titled as "expert". Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, none of the "keep" arguments have really addressed the fundamental notability issues, rather they've simply attempted to sidestep clear wikipedia policy by making very weaselly interpretations of wording and intent. The discussion generated by relisting has only resulted in an argument over the legitimacy of the original editor, with the same contributors from the previous discussion merely restating their weak keep case, without really progressing the discussion to any stronger case. I think, on balance, delete is the strongest case here, lest a precedent be set that will see all manner of non-notable people start to use wikipedia as a kind of gilded resume. Badharlick (talk) 18:28, 14 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoe_Gardner_(migration_expert)&oldid=1248790100"