Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisette Nieves

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Nieves[edit]

[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)

There is nothing to indicate notability per the notability guidelines. This is written up like a CV – WP:NORESUMES. Thenightaway (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ A little bit of coverage, such as [1], some interviews (e.g. [2]), press releases (e.g. [3]), and articles the subject has written (e.g. [4]) isn't quite enough to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the lead of the article she is an academic and leader of a non-profit so WP:PROF applies to her and WP:ORG applies for her non-progit.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any criteria under which she meets WP:NPROF. I'd also had a look at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lisette+Nieves&btnG=. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- She does not meet the criteria for WP:NPROF. Just being an academic is not sufficient. The organizations that she has headed don't even have their own WP pages, so it's unclear to me why that lends her notability. Thenightaway (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are things that might lend her notability. I think we should exhaust all the possible avenues that may lend notability before deleting. This article has been around for a while, since 2006, and consistently edited. It would seem that people care enough about it to keep editing it over the years. Another thing that might lend notability is her presidency of Fund for the City of New York. Or her membership of the board at Americorps. These might satisfy Wikipedia:Notability of Local Government Officials.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "Fund for the City of New York" does not even have its own WP page, so it's unclear why the person who heads that organization merits a WP page. That this page has existed since 2006 and no substantive RS content has been found/added to the article since then is in my view an indicator of non-notability, rather than an indicator of notability. Thenightaway (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having or not having its own WP page is not an indicator of non-notability. That it has existed since 2006 and having substantial edits since then is an indicator of long standing relevance regardless of the quality of those edits. On the Americorp membership that i mentioned in the previous comment, turns out she was nominated by POTUS of all people. Being mentioned by name in a white house release strongly suggests possible notability.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be aware that the age of the article is not evidence for notability. Please see WP:ARTICLEAGE. Also press releases are not independant sources for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right, but context matters. This is a white house statement, coming from a government decision, not just any ordinary press release by a company or organisation. On article age I also agree that at some point she did not meet notability, but she did end up achieving notability some time between becoming FCNY president and being appointed by Biden.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete agree, some sources, but not enough, found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per her nomination by President Biden. Any presidential nomination is of significant interest to the public and has grounds to have their own article. Also an article for Fund for the City of New York (FCNY), of which she is the president, meets notability and can be created by someone at some point.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her nomination to the AmeriCorps board was confirmed by the US Senate in July 2022 (citation added). Previously Barack Obama appointed her to an advisory commission (citation added). I have added in multiple sources covering her position as a Rhodes Scholar (the first from Brooklyn College) and Truman Scholar (though I realize both were early in her career). DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is also confusing because, as the talk page notes, various versions of this page conflate two individuals. One who graduated from Wesleyan and Harvard [5] and one who graduated from Brooklyn College, University of Oxford, Princeton, and University of Pennsylvania. I have removed the information about the Wesleyan/Harvard graduate. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd discounted both those scholar awards as far too early for WP:NPROF, but the coverage of them may count towards WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is not really a good case for WP:PROF. But in-depth coverage in multiple sources over a large time range (in particular the New York Times 1991, Daily News 2004, and Latino Leaders 2017) adds up to a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and per WP:BASIC, and I have also expanded the article with some additional research. Beccaynr (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep striking previous !vote. The additional sources found push it over the line for meeting WP:GNG. The presidential nomination and involvement with FCNY didn't inherently make the subject notable though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2022 (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.