Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayra Rivera

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. No need to drag this out. Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Rivera

[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)

Unsourced. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be sourced, it meets WP:PROF point 5.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How is someone with a named chair at Harvard failing NPROF? The article needs sourcing but the subject clearly has presumed notability. And the claim is sourced, a primary source is sufficient for a simple factual claim like this; though the article should have other sources, the factual claim that establishes notability is not in any serious doubt. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Easily verifiable: [1]. Clear pass of WP:NPROF#C5 at Harvard, no less. Glane23, please withdraw this nomination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't argue here. Apparently WP:PROF is the only guideline which a person can completely fail the basic litmus test for notability to be included WP:N and yet still be notable just because they are a member of academia. Must be nice to not have to be held to higher standards than this. Significant coverage be damned. Is that a primary source? Meh, who cares, they are a professor, scholar or and a member of the superior caste of academia. --ARose Wolf 20:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fits WP:NPROF under criterion 5: named chair. Was previously sourced but changed under this revision.--Caorongjin (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I’ve voted already, the nominatior is wrong. It DOES cite sources when you said it didn’t. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was unsourced at the time of nomination. As well as failing to perform WP:BEFORE and look for outside sources, and as well as failing to correctly apply WP:PROF, the nominator appears to have failed to look at the article history, in which a WP:SPA stripped the article of its sources an hour before the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad nomination, obvious and easily verifiable pass of WP:PROF and probably also WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 22 January 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.