Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khady Ndiaye

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 redirect‎ to Chaplain Corps (United States Army)#Other notable chaplains. I see consensus that sources currently do not support a standalone article, and the proposed ATD is sensible. Owen× 07:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khady Ndiaye (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)

This seems like a WP:BLP1E. Also, Ndiaye isn't even a chaplain yet, but a chaplain candidate, so even notability for that event seems not particularly special. I don't think she meets WP:ANYBIO either. For most other chaplains to get firsts like Bonnie Koppell and Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, they have more significant accomplishments beyond being the first chaplain of their religion/gender, and I don't think Ndiaye's removal from the DoD website, while unfortunate, is something that qualifies as making her more notable. Ndiaye also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as the Army source is not independent, and there really isn't any WP:SIGCOV outside of the NYTimes article, so not multiple sources.

I'd say draftifying at very least would be appropriate until Ndiaye actually becomes a chaplain. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will likely not know if she becomes a chaplain as it probably will not be reported on in this administration so we would not have RS coverage on it. The usual timeline for that happening would be next month.
While the nominator suggests her accomplishment is not "particularly special", when you recognize the historical weight of her accomplishment in the 200+ year history of the US Army, notability is considerable. The fact that she received a press release on her nomination at the time, which garnered attention from the paper of record, is significant coverage.
The removal of her information from the DoD website is more than "unfortunate", it's part of an orchestrated attempt to rewrite history, which makes the subject even more notable.
Nayyn (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reporting from the administration doesn't matter either way as that's not independent. Press releases from the Army don't count as independent coverage. The NYT article does, but it is only one part of meeting WP:GNG which requires multiple sources. And then there's still the WP:BLP1E concerns. 2LT Ndiaye is probably likely to remain WP:LPI and we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL that she won't. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 11:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro could you please add this to the deletion sorting lists for women, religion and Islam please, I'm not sure how to do that. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I'll admit many of the points that the nominator has raised are relevant if you are considering a strict definition of WP:NBIO. However the fact that few outside sources exist for this person do not negate the fact that this person exists and the sources that do exist are reliable. Her erasure by the administration (and from history), and despite the points raised by the nominator were what predicated the creation of this article in the brilliant Wikipedia spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. In terms or notability WP:ANYBIO, Ndiaye would be recognized as someone who would be counted as "part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", considering the 240+ year history of chaplaincy in the United States Army. I think it would be hard to argue against that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyn (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 April 2025 (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.