Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bea Mendez-Gandica

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Mendez-Gandica

[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)

CEO doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks coverage that is both independent and of sufficient depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Venezuela, and Wisconsin. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've improved the article a bit and looked for sources, but could not find anything to support notability. I'll gladly reverse this is anyone can show sources to support notability. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I de-PROD'd this one after adding multiple sources. I also cannot find more, but I feel like there should be other sources that I am missing. She is not the first American Association for the Advancement of Science IF/THEN Ambassador to come up at AfD, but I was more successful in finding sources for the others. Frankly, given the display of orange statues that have been making their way around the United States, I am surprised that there is not wider coverage of the people who had their likenesses represented. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found several sources about Mendez-Gandica ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]), some of which have already been inclued in the article. I would normally lean towards a weak keep, but the issue that I see is that they apparently lack independence or depth. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the new sources above by Noonlcarus, most are interviews and many are from her University. The Discovery Channel seems to be the best one, we don't really have Discover as a RS, but I see no reason why this would be faked. I really don't want to delete it, she's doing good in the world and telling her story would help support the fight against bias on Wiki; female, US minority, women in science, these are all things she's championing. It's still a Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried making findings and searching for source to support but wasn't able to find any, would have voted for it to be draftify so it can be work on but for now I think a delete seems ideal.Epcc12345 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (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.