Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa H. Arriola

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa H. Arriola

[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)

No independent, in-depth coverage. Does not pass WP:PROF. Filetime (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think they pass WP:BASIC. I'd also suggest that criteria 7 of WP:PROF should be considered, since their activism is closely aligned with their academic work. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems illogical to expect her to meet PROF since she was only appointed to an academic post for the first time in 2021. Thus we evaluate context. Where is she from? A small island in the Pacific. Is it logical that she has received broad coverage in the US or UK? No; however, coverage has been found in the UK, US and Pacific. Has she received coverage over time? Yes 2006-2021. Do we have sufficient information in RS sources to give a reasonably complete biography and overview of her activism, without OR by combining sources? Yes The Guardian [1], Micronesian Educator [2], KUAM-TV [3], Slate [4], Marianas Variety [5], Pacific Daily News [6], as well as the Saipan Tribune, and pieces by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Meets WP:Basic. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mukedits (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources more than justify notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. —Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with SusunW - and also we need to use some common sense about how women activist scholars measure up. The debates around why academic women are rarely "highly cited" combined with a reasonable belief in the importance of including indigenous women in portrayals of higher education communities makes this article important. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the GNG which is established by the sources that SusunW posted above and supersedes a SNG such as NPROF --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:17, 9 November 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.