Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandra Ceja

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 verging to weakly kept. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Ceja[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)

Could not find sufficient sources that were actually reliable, secondary and in-depth enough to meet WP:BASIC, and I don't believe her governmental position was of a type of provide assumed notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided are mostly primary and not that helpful. But searches of books and news quickly turned up two good sources, [1] and [2]. All we consider at AFD is notability, not article content. Notability requires multiple reliable independent sources, which I find to be satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source looks good, if it's independent enough, however the second, once you've factored out a quote by her, doesn't really cover her in significant depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Msnicki. Daughter of Mexican immigrant parents who rose to a high post in the U.S. Government is immediately notable by definition. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Roman Spinner: How? What guideline ascribes "notable by definition" to a non-cabinet/minister level post because of parentage? Currently there's no policy cited Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nosebagbear: My reading of the five inline cites under Alejandra Ceja#References confirms notability sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. However, as we all know very well, Wikipedia is consensus-based and, of course, if sufficient number of Wikipedians feel otherwise, then my stance will not prevail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Roman, all of those sources are worse than the two given by Msnicki, which I cover above Nosebagbear (talk):

CHCI exists to try and promote the next generation of latino leaders, so obviously is neither secondary, reliable, nor independent
Newark Trust has her as a Board member, so again is neither secondary, reliable, or independent
NIU is a university blog post, and is functionally either a quote or a video from her, so again, neither secondary, nor independent, nor meeting SigCov
The US Department of Education is a related organisation, and certainly neither secondary nor independent
PLEN, again is rather like the CHCI, with the two supporting each other, so not independent, and presumably not secondary

Keep - I'm convinced by the sources provided by Msnicki above. The book reference is fairly circular and clearly niche in scope (with a niche audience) but it looks to be published by a reputable publisher and edited (as such guides usually are, as opposed to authored) by a well-regarded journalist. The article is coverage of her, and coverage of her opinion. I see no reason to "factor out" the quotation within the article; explaining the subject's opinions by quoting the subject is normal journalistic practice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:30, 23 July 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.