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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• 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]

• Agreed - need to be vigilant for paid / self written promotional articles like this 92.95.93.78 (talk) 20:30, 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]

• 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? TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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:

  • Smith, Ginny (8 February 2024). "Defenders of Democracy: Zoe Gardner". Sussex Bylines. (I don't know how reliable it is but it has editorial oversight)
  • Dadlani, Priya (18 April 2016). "What would 'Brexit' mean for refugees?". Thomson Reuters Foundation News.

  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. TarnishedPath^talk 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]