Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Rojas Rabiela

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Rojas Rabiela

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Teresa Rojas Rabiela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not appear to be notable. She has published a lot, but there's otherwise little biographical information published about her in reliable sources. The article was written by a single editor who also wrote much of the equivalent article on es.wp  Ohc revolution of our times 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I don't want to say keep without being more certain, but Wikipedia library seems to bring up reviews of her book. Or am I translating incorrectly? Can you say what you found in the WP:BEFORE searching? Seems like she might pass WP:AUTHOR. I don't think that the same person created the article in two wikipedias is a problem, especially in the context of them creating multiple articles.
  1. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/jar.52.2.3630215 CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Leaning keep' I have an open mind, I'm not certain, but on balance so far, noting comments below by Espresso Addict, I'd lean towards keep. I may refine/change my !vote as more people add comments and !votes. CT55555 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Google Scholar profile[1] has respectable citations (83,81,68,64,62) for papers not in English and pre-1990 (bearing in mind that according to our article on h-index, both Scopus & GS poorly capture pre-1990 publications). Have not checked for reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the COI tag as I do not feel it is justified to assume COI based on what you've stated here. Is there more to the matter that makes you think there's a problem? --Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to reinforce my proposal for the publication of this article that I, as user, have started, I´ll use the Wikipedia Deletion Policy assumptions in the order in which they are listed:

1. There are no copyright violations. 2. It doesn’t contain inflammatory redirects or disparages their subject or others like these. 3. This isn’t advertising or spam, the topic, a biography, is relevant enough to appear in the encyclopedia, due to the issues that Rojas Rabiela has investigated, as you can see below. 4. It doesn’t contain forks. 5. It has enough reliable, verifiable sources. 6. Its topic has enough notability, It’s about a researcher and writer on technologies, the culture of water and labor in pre-Hispanic cultures, of New Spain and its heritage in today's technologies and culture. Surely she’s not as remarkable as Émile Durkheim, Michel Foucault or Margaret Read (I'm surprised that the article about such a famous anthropologist as Read is so short!) but, for example, let us think of the researchers who will search Wikipedia for information on the topics that Rojas Rabiela has investigated: they will find an author and the bibliography that she has written on those topics. 7. The article is about a living person, it denotes her studies, research, books and articles she has written and published, and awards she has won, it doesn’t touch on any sensitive or private life aspect. We need to recall that biographies of living persons require at least one source (sic) in any form (references, external links, etc.) I have included sufficient references and external links to reliable, acceptable pages and sites. 8. It doesn’t contain redundant or useless templates. 9. The article is included only in the categories to which it belongs. 10. It doesn’t have links to obsolete, unused or non-free files. I think that all of us, users and administrators, must follow these policies, not add arguments like the one that has been proposed that the article be deleted because it has been written by a single editor (I) just like the article in Spanish, as it certainly is. This does not make me ill-intentioned or suspicious. It isn’t a Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The article is a translation and improvement from an article that appears already in Wikipedia in Spanish from 2013. I think translate articles from Wikipedia in other languages is valid or it should be valid. I hope the article remains. Best regards. --Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (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/Teresa_Rojas_Rabiela&oldid=1091982135"