Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Almanza

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. The consensus is that the sourcing, especially from Mother Jones Magazine passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Almanza[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)

Article about an activist and unsuccessful political candidate, not properly sourcing any strong claim to passing our notability standards for activists or politicians. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates per se, and that's especially true when they were only candidates for a city council -- even the incumbent councillor she ran against doesn't qualify for an article on that basis in and of itself, and the fact that she was running against her brother, while amusing, isn't significant enough to make her candidacy more special than other people's candidacies.
But this is referenced principally to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (i.e. her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with), and doesn't show nearly enough reliable source coverage in real media to make her encyclopedically notable for any of this.
Also, the page was created in draftspace and then immediately moved to mainspace by its own creator without a proper WP:AFC review.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Environment, and Texas. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond her brief political adventure (which isn't notable), nothing is even close to notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep All the reasons are about her environmental work, not her brief political efforts.

There is a 1998 article about her on page 20 of Mother Jones Magazine, Nov-Dec 1998 written by Jessica Shattuck. It has a brief quote from Almanza at the end, but it's independent enough and significant
She mentioned here, indeed briefly, but also notes that she was appointed to the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. And if you search her name and that council you'll see that was noted by media many times https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-groups-commemorating-cesar-chavez-day-activism-mobilization-rcna21439 (another example here https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/whispers/almanza-appointed-to-federal-environmental-panel/)
She is mentioned briefly only and it includes a quote on page 68 of The Worlds of American Intellectual History. (2017). United States: Oxford University Press.
She is the founder of a serious NGO
She is quoted frequently in a way that establishes her in my mind as an expert
She features already in Executive Office appointments by Joe Biden and Brown Berets (Austin)

Overall none of this is enough for me to say she confidently passes, but I think it adds up enough for me to !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Mother Jones piece is already in the article, and is not a new data point that wasn't already taken into account. It takes a lot more than just one of those to get a person over GNG.
(2+3) Being "mentioned briefly" in sources that aren't about her in any meaningful way does not assist in establishing notability.
(4) Founding an NGO is not a notability freebie in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage about her work in that role.
(5) Being "quoted" in sources about other things does not assist in establishing notability — a person does not get over GNG on sources where she's the speaker about other things, she gets over GNG on sources where she's the subject being spoken or written about by other people.
(6) A person's name being present in other articles is not in and of itself a notability freebie that exempts her from actually having to pass GNG on the sourcing; neither the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council nor the Brown Berets are organizations where mere membership hands someone an automatic "get out of GNG free" card. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say borderline... There's plenty more about her in Google books. For example:

Civil Rights in Black and Brown: Histories of Resistance and Struggle in Texas. (2021). United States: University of Texas Press. mentions her name 10 times, and talks about her upbringing (location, poverty, local epidemiology). It appears (I can't see it all via Google Books) reliant on interviews.

I don't have it to hand, but I have seen a few times editors refer to multiple brief mentions adding up to general notability. And so please don't take my comments to mean I'm advocating for some sort of exception to GNG.

I don't think non notable people show up so frequently in google books and show up so frequently in google news and I also note the interest from authors and journalists has spanned decades. CT55555 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done a bit of work on the article and in doing so found she passes GNG. The Mother Jones piece is actually all about her, she has an entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in Contemporary Politics, Law, and Social Movements and I added a source about her election to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mujinga--evrik ^(talk) 02:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It's much clearer now that she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete this page 68.203.5.123 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 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.