Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome

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 speedy keep. Speedy keeping under WP:SK criteria 2 and 3 - very likely a vexatious nomination, no deletion rationale, no good-faith votes to delete. Note that this decision has nothing to do with the number of people who argued to keep the article and does not preclude a later deletion discussion with a proper rationale. To the many new and unregistered users who showed up to this discussion: please take a moment to read our policies on how deletion discussions work and canvassing. Deletion discussions revolve around Wikipedia policies, not vote count, and the Wikipedia community does not appreciate it when people are clearly being asked to join a discussion in order to support a particular outcome. I do, however, encourage you to contribute in other areas. creffett (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Newsome[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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

’’’Comment’’’ subject is a notable member of the scientific community. This move to deletion seems to be a direct attack on her solely on the basis for being a person of color. The article deserves to remain up as to allow people to see all the work she has done in her field of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject fails to meet criterion of notability under WP:BASIC
Comment This person meets the criterion of notability based on her influence as in science communication, and her rising profile in the STEM community. Merits inclusion in Wikipedia and would be of use to the public to be able to find her here. --AmyFou (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was a cocreator of a heavily influential science communication group that increased visibility of Black scientists and issues that Black people face in outdoor pursuits. Deletion seems to be racially oriented and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.129.74 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person is a well-known science communicator and is often referenced as both a scientist and Black woman. It would be useful for people to be able to reference quality information on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person meets the criterion of notability because she created a major movement at the intersection of conservation biology and race. Her leadership during the 2020 movement will be remembered. Wikipedia profile will be essential to provide information to communicators looking for information on her work. Smreillyatx (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meets the notability criteria. She is an accomplished Black woman in the STEM community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofstreams (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This scientist is well-known in her community. Not only has is she a strong advocate for environmental equality she has developed programs to provide career experiences to lower income students. Her work as an advocate for the environment, an advocate for access to academic programs for low income students and her academic credentials make her a valuable addition to the Wikipedia environment. Upon review, the page is written in a 3rd person, neutral tone as befitting an encyclopedia. Given these things deletion of this page appears to be motivated based on the scientist's race and gender which is inappropriate and discriminatory. --LadyFaeyre (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page does meet criteria as per WP:BASIC i.e. "has received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]." Newsome has received coverage in multiple outlets for research, outreach and Black Birders Week (all cited in page). Soulsinsync (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis person is notable under the WP:BASIC criteria. She is a highly recognized science communicator, she has 58.9K followers on twitter alone, organized BlackBirdersWeek in response to the Cooper bird-harrassment event in NYC, which was an internationally influential social media week. She is found in noteworthy news such as National Geographic, CNN, and Forbes magazine, in addition to dozens of other smaller publications and newspapers. This person is famous.
CommentThe number of citations alone should indicate this person's notability. NPR, Science Mag, Forbes, CNN. This page should not be deleted. plcoffey (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (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.