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.
This article does not provide multiple published secondary reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. It uses a single source, much of which consists of first-person material from the subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She was appointed by the Governor of California to the State's medical board. I see a detailed profile article in nbclatino.com, and several other sources related to her efforts in the latino and medical communities. Sources establish notability per WP:GNG.198.58.162.200 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now several secondary sources. She has played an important role as an immigrant doctor.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable as per comments above and a search on Google Books, her work is well cited. She has received awards in the field of immigration medicine. Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two indicators of notability under WP:GNG are (1) membership on the California state medical board (a fairly weak indicator), (2) author of a highly cited work (possibly a weak pass of C1 of WP:PROF). I am less convinced that cofounding the "International Medical Graduate Program" (a program that lacks a Wikipedia article) is a clear indicator of notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and rather seems to be something done in the course of her regular administrative duties at UCLA. However, since the article is about a woman, and the articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia, I think it can be kept based on just barely meeting some of the notability criteria. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sławomir Biały, your comment is incredibly sexist and offensive. Do you find it hard living in a contemporary world where men and women are equal?198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF directly sponsors efforts to write articles specifically about women. When articles written as part of these efforts turn out not to meet our notability guidelines, I have observed a group of the same editors arguing that the articles be kept, specifically because those articles were part of the WMF program. I don't think it's necessarily wrong that articles about women be held to a lower standard. But observing inequalities like this is not sexist. It is in fact quite the opposite, and is something we are trained to do in cultural sensitivity training. I'd encourage you to withdraw the personal attack. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sławomir Biały, I suggest you explain that statement, provide proof (I won't hold my breath) that a lower standard exists, and retract what you stated. freshacconci (✉) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation above. Save drama for ANI, thanks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I predicted, you have no proof to back up your nonsense, just "I observed...". And when someone calls you out for your sexism you hide their comment. Pretty much says it all about you. freshacconci (✉) 01:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this. Articles on female academics are twice as likely to close as "keep" as articles about men. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Hopefully you will take into account Sławomir Biały's muddying the water with his (Redacted)freshacconci (✉) 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You too. Your disagreement over the appropriate way to get women well-represented here (which clearly from both of your comments is part of the goals of both you and SB) is no excuse for attacking other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the personal attack? The sexism stands but responding to sexism is redacted. And Sławomir Biały thinks Wikipedia lowers the bar for topics about women. Apparently the bar is quite low for acceptable sexism. Nice. (And no, Sławomir Biały has no interest women being well-represented. That's the whole point). freshacconci (✉) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone sexist, merely because he openly and approvingly describes mechanisms for increasing representation of women, rather than (as you seem to think he should do) carrying out those mechanisms but simultaneously pretending they're not happening, is an attack. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...he openly and approvingly describes mechanisms for increasing representation of women..." What on earth were you reading? I have to say it: I got nothing. He actually said: "However, since the article is about a woman, and the articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia, I think it can be kept based on just barely meeting some of the notability criteria." That's not a positive statement. That's a sexist statement. But I guess you redacting the comments and your bizarre interpretation of Sławomir Biały's comments kind of proves the low bar that is set for sexism tolerance on Wikipedia, and pretty much demonstrates why the Women in Red group exists. freshacconci (✉) 02:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you quote has no opinion in it whatsoever, and certainly not a sexist opinion. It is a statement of fact (possibly true, possibly false) about how Wikipedia works. The part that demonstrates his approval for this mechanism is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red where he also wrote "I think it should even be written into policy. That's the essence of affirmative action, which is a good thing." In your zeal to attack sexists you are firing on people with the same goals. Regardless, attacking sexists has no place here, any more than attacking feminists or attacking nestorianists or whatever. Respond to the arguments about the article, not to your perception or misperception about the thoughts of the people making them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty responding to your comments about whether or not his comments are sexist out of sheer disbelief. You're actually saying that "articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia" is a statement of fact? I'm floored, honestly. However, your following statement is particularly appalling: "attacking sexists has no place here" and that you equate sexists with feminists. If he had said something racist you better believe I'd call him a racist and I can't imagine you'd equate racists with the targets of racism. But that's exactly what you're saying here: sexists cannot be "attacked" (which to you is any criticism of explicitly sexist comments). And the fact that you cannot see the extreme sexism in his comments and somehow believe that his condescension is really about working for the same goal is troubling, particularly from an administrator (and apparently a RL professor). And don't you dare dismiss my comments as "zeal." As for responding to arguments about the article, I was. That's what this was: a response to a sexist comment dismissing pretty much any biography about women as being the result of a "lower bar" of inclusion. And that you are incapable of seeing that is shameful. freshacconci (✉) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slawomir, I changed my mind.I agree with you now, and I think it's very problematic not only that we have lower notability standars for women, but that there are actually women editing here. This is a man's world and a man's work. I'm with you buddy. Also thank the lord that we have a hat function to cover up any objections to that philosophy. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considerable amounts of sourcing and material has been added since this AFD started - I just added another one which is her membership on the board of a government health agency. --Krelnik (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2017 (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.
