Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia Mendoza (second nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Ocean Beach Antique District. Thanks to all for an unusually collegial and productive discussion.  Sandstein  19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Mendoza

AfDs for this article:
Cordelia Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantially different from original article. This person may be notable within the antique scene of one city, but there's no evidence of broader WP:BIO notability criteria, particularly in-depth coverage from third party reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After much discussion during the 1st AFD and after this article was reworked considerably, veteran editor User:MelanieN, who nominated the 1st AFD citing lack of notability, MelanieN noted, "Congratulations on your new article on Cordelia Mendoza. I think you have established her as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC). -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (reevaluate,see comment below) Notability in this reworked article, as I see it, resides news coverage of her childhood role as a poster child (literally as a poster child) for the Heart Association; in her career as a locally notable antiques and collectibles dealer (a subject on which she is often quoted in the press); and in the considerable attention paid by the regional and local press to her civic participation. The fact that people will want to know who she is because of her many notable relatives does not count towards notability, but it should be an incentive to make this a better article. I believe that it would improved by tightening (shortening) to remove a great deal of un-encyclopedic detail (at present, it's hard to spot the notability hiding behind the trivial detail.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have begun reworking the article by tightening the writing and deleting unnecessary detail. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quoted above, as having found the article acceptable and the person notable in 2010. I am currently evaluating the article again, from the perspective of six years' additional experience here. I am discussing improvements to the article with the author (no pun intended), and I will comment later at this AfD.--MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is all local at best and my searches found only expected links, nothing else seemingly better. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, SwisterTwister. What does "expected links" mean? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning all I found were a few trivial mentions from a few local news articles, nothing solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been pared down and reorganized to be more concise. Equally important, extraneous info and ext links have been removed, and dead citations have been replaced with reliable sources. The subject has a lengthy history of volunteer work, sourced by numerous newspaper articles about her, starting as a child as a representative for a year of the San Diego Heart Association, with national, regional and local nonprofits in her adult life (Rady Children's Hospital and Best Friends Animal Society are national organizations, and the Heart Association is a regional org). She was noted by a daily newspaper as "a pioneer in establishing the antiques district" in Ocean Beach, San Diego. Add in multiple awards for volunteer and business contributions in her fields of expertise and notability is well established. Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AuthorAuthor, you only get one !vote; I changed your duplicate !vote to a comment. After your paring and reorganization of the article, the same issues remain. The awards are all commonplace local community awards; none of them are notable
As far as sources go, this article is still heavily padded with refs that are tangential at best. Most of them are broken links or either don't mention Mendoza or quote her. The exceptions are:::(1) A short article in The OB Rag, a neighborhood-based (not city) paper,
(2) a short Q&A in the San Diego Union Tribune about local antiquing;
(3) a few short articles about neighborhood home tours in SDNews.com, an obscure community paper.
(4) the only article that meets meets the "depth of coverage" part of WP:BIO would be maybe a 1989 article from "San Diego Woman" [1]. I'm not sure if the publication itself would meet WP:RS guidelines.
I'm pretty sure that an article about the Mendoza's dog getting attacked by a coyote doesn't count. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoitsJamie, the coyote story ref was used as a source for the city she resides in, thus the placement of the ref in the article. Per your comment about SDNews.com being "an obscure community newspaper," according to its website, the newspaper group was established in 1988 and prints and publishes five community newspapers. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they publish several free papers that people might pick up from a rack in the deli and glance through while they wait for their sandwich to be prepared. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The Beacon and the Beach and Bay Press and the others are more than that. They have editorial standards, and are delivered to homes and businesses, and people read them eagerly for the local news. But they are still a very minor and hyper-local journalistic endeavor. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. (changing to Redirect, see below) I have been working with AuthorAuthor for several days, hoping to get the references improved and the notability made more clear. AuthorAuthor has tried mightily. But at the end of the day this just doesn't make it as a Wikipedia article. The subject's references are minor and local, confirming that this woman is notable only in her own neighborhood. Not enough for an international encyclopedia. Sorry, AuthorAuthor, and thanks for trying. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The refs cited are not only from SDNews.com. The San Diego Union-Tribune is a regional paper, and the San Diego Daily Transcript is the legal paper of record for the region. Also, a California state award is not minor; neither is a key to a city from a city the size of San Diego. The accumulation of those awards and the others the subject has received, along with recognition as a volunteer leader starting as a child for nonprofits - including two nonprofits that are national organizations -- plus a career in which she is regularly called upon by the news media to comment as an expert, not to mention writing contributions, I believe clearly demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you believe this. I did my best to believe it too, but the sources just aren't there and the importance just isn't there. Her strongest claim to notability IMO is opening the first antique store in what became Ocean Beach Antique Row, but that just doesn't rise to the level of significance for this encyclopedia. Her voluntarism as an adult is routine and local; her voluntarism and recognition as a child got some coverage but not enough for an article. You were not able to find a source to explain about the state award (which may have been something special, or may have been a routine favor to a constituent). The only source for the key to the city is an op-ed by the subject's sister. And so on. It's true that I proclaimed her notable six years ago, when I had been editing for about a year. I have since learned more - a lot more - about Wikipedia's criteria for articles. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of "believing" the subject is notable; it is a matter of the subject, backed up by multiple third-party sources, passing WP:GNG. Notable was not San Diego Daily Transcript's statement that the subject had the first store in what became the antique district; it was reporting in the newspaper that she was "a pioneer in establishing the antiques district." That is quite a step beyond simply having one of the first stores. Discounting a state award by saying it "may have been a routine favor to a constituent" is jumping to a conclusion. For the key to the city award, I will try and find, through archives, another newspaper source, even though the San Diego Union-Tribune published an opinion piece that included it. I would think the paper fact checks. As for OhNoitsJamie claiming that "most of" the links in the article "are broken links or either don't mention Mendoza or quote her" is false. She is heavily quoted in the sources. Added up, multiple sources pass WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article needs serious work - as well as merging of some of the Mendoza information. I will do that a little later, no time right now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that took a while! The Antique District article was in terrible shape, and virtually all its links were dead. But it is now Wiki-shape and includes information about Cordelia Mendoza. I now support a Redirect to Ocean Beach Antique District. Thanks to E.M.Gregory for coming up with an alternative to deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, E.M.Gregory, for the alternative suggestion. And thank you, MelanieN, for your stellar advice and hard work on both articles. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cordelia_Mendoza_(second_nomination)&oldid=1087636636"