Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernanda Staniscuaski

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 to delete. The argument for (weakly) keeping this article is premised on the subject's advocacy, rather than their scientific achievements, so a somewhat higher bar of sources is required. Whether that is met is questionable in this case, but after extended time for discussion there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Staniscuaski

[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)

not yet notable, no hightly cited research paper by our usual standards ; however, she works in a very narrow specific subfield, and perhaps they mightb eisgnificant. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Let us keep an eye on it, but it's not an obvious case for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTJUSTYET quite yet.--Darwinek (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. she fails WP:NPROF but she has gained exposure and coverage due to her activism around parenting in academia. On top of the English sources there are quite a few more in Portuguese/Spanish. --hroest 00:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it looks like there is WP:BASIC notability from multiple independent and reliable sources, and that her biographical information, including being a parent, e.g. as reported in Science, is relevant to her advocacy. It also appears that non-English sources WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

being a parent is enough for notability ? DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, she has gained exposure and coverage due to her activism around parenting in academia. Her biographical information is also reported by the independent and reliable source I linked above, and likely by other sources, so objectively, it appears to help create encyclopedic content for a BLP article. While it is related to her advocacy, it also distinguishes her from her organization and appears to provide further support for her article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable for her advocacy work. Furius (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Fails WP:NPROF, but just about passes WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above! VocalIndia (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep agree with above weak keep arguments. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GScholar citability is too low to indicate satisfying WP:PROF yet. The claims to passsing WP:GNG for social activism do not stand up to the actual sruitiny of sources. The Science article [1] mentioned by Beccaynr above contains a brief quote by the subject. Ref number 2 in the article[2] is a dead link but in any event it was to a forum that she founded, so the source would not have been independent anyway. Ref number 3[3] is a proceedings report co-authored by the subject herself, so again not an independent source. Ref number 4[4] is behind a paywall so I wasn't able to access it (perhaps someone else has better luck). Ref number 5[5] is co-authored by the subject herself so again not independent. Ref number 6[6] contains just a brief mention of her. Ref number 9[7] is again co-authored by the subject herself. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, where "significant" means that the coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I am not seeing anything here coming even close to satisfying this requirement, based on the sources provided so far. Some people want to see at least three examples of significant coverage for satisfying WP:GNG. Personally, I'd be satisfied with two. Here I'm not seeing even one for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and I have added sources, including news coverage of her work with Parent in Science, as well as commentary from the Fondation l'Oreal. The reference 4 mentioned above includes, (translated) "We created the hashtag #MaternidadenoLattes, structured a letter and sent it to CNPq last year. We had support from more than 30 scientific societies. Now, the board accepted the suggestion and promised to change the curriculum for the coming months - explains Fernanda Staniscuaski, coordinator of Parent in Science, professor at UFRGS and mother of Bruno, six, Samuel, three, and Gabriel, five months." Beccaynr (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the relevant excerpt from ref 4. Still, at the most we have four independent references here (Science, MSN, ref 4 and the Fondation l'Oreal), each providing a brief mention of the subject. Even if each of these references had provided in-depth coverage, most editors in most AfDs would argue for deletion. I have never seen an article kept in an AfD as passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO on the basis of several brief mentions only, without even a single in-depth source covering the subject. That's not how WP:BASIC is met. We need at least some in-depth independent sources and, if only one such source is available, a much much larger number of sources non-indepth biographical coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think these references are more than a brief mention, because they offer context and/or commentary about her work, so they appear to support WP:BASIC notability. She is the founder of the Parent in Science movement and leader of various outreach activities that receive coverage, as well as the lead author of a study that has received coverage, so the coverage of her often appears to be more in-depth than a trivial mention, and now there are two sources identified that include some biographical information. And the quote I pulled from reference 4 was representative but not the only focus on her, e.g. "Preliminary data from the survey conducted by Parent in Science show that 59% of the interviewed scientists perceived the impact of motherhood as negative for the researcher's career, and 22% see it as very negative. In addition, 51% affirm that they are the only ones responsible for the care of the child, without the help of companions or family members. Only at the end of 2017 did a specific law come into force to guarantee scientists with research support grants the right to maternity leave without loss of financial aid. Very recent advances, highlights Professor Fernanda: - It was important to bring data to discuss the issue of motherhood and science with the general public. [...] There is still a lot to discuss." Beccaynr (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now. Riteboke (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2021 (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.