Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Stemmle

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. This is a BLP and sourcing is insufficient. If folks think a redirect to EcoLatinos is helpful, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Stemmle

[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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. The references are absolutely atrocious. scope_creep^Talk 22:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and help improve. I tend to disagree with the above rather harsh expression of the sources. The article has been created during the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Women in Environmental Justice today. None of us landed on our feet with perfect knowledge and sourcing when we started. This is the user's first time ever trying to create a Wikipedia article. It would be more helpful to Wikipedia if editors would help clean this up a little. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would helpful to Wikipedia if was deleted. Where it is created isn't relevant. It hasn't a secondary for a WP:BLP, never mind a full WP:PRIMARY source, like for example a long interview. Instead it is passing mentions and profiles. It is junk. WP:BLP states: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". WP:BIO defines three criteria for notability. This article fails all of them. It is a very poor choice for a keep !vote due to a edit-a-thon scope_creep^Talk 23:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument you have made isn't a criteria for evaluation of notability. Instead it seems to be an appeal to emotion as opposed the corect criteria, which is a rational examination of it quality and construction and how it relates to notabilty policy. That is in mainspace article, so it will evaluated as a mainspace article. I'll will have a look at the sources. scope_creep^Talk 22:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to vote draftify because I strongly agree with your point about supporting new editors, but unfortunately, there don't seem to be RSes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the sources demonstrate notability, though some more would be great. The article needs expansion but the sources about her show that she passes GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could she be a section of an "EcoLatinos" article, as her organisation seems more notable ? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)7[reply]
Comment Its states in WP:BLP that "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Lets look at the sources:

Ref 1 [1] This is a 6 line profile in a blog. It is not significant source. It is a WP:SPS non-rs source.

Ref 2 [2] This is a single word mention. It is not significant source.

Ref 3 [3] This a 4-line profile. Its another WP:SPS source. It is not significant.

Ref 4 [4] This doesn't mention her at all.

Ref 5 [5] This is PR, and while it is covering here organisation, it is PR. It is written as a PR piece. It is plain as day.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source in this list. A WP:BEFORE was done and there was no signifcant coverage there either. scope_creep^Talk 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also conducted a search and found no articles that establish notability; specifically, while Stemmle is mentioned in several sources, there is nothing that contains significant coverage about the subject. I agree with Scope_creep's source review after reviewing the sources myself. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Sadly there just't isn't enough sourcing on the subject to pass GNG. I was able to locate two newspaper articles where she was mentioned in passing and a third where she was interviewed briefly as the Latino liaison for Prince George's County State Attorney's Office to comment on a new Maryland bill on immigration enforcement in 2003. None of the articles were about her, and wouldn't constitute "in-depth coverage". The source analysis above is also persuasive.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Commendable community leadership does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:23, 14 October 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.