Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia M. Sosa

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!} 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

[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)

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1)	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here	~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing.	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2)	Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Why not?	Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website	This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students.	This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release	This is a press release	This is a press release	There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece.	✘ No
Them	Seems independent to me	For sake of argument	There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's.	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	✘ No
MedPage Today	Why not?	Why not?	Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece.	✘ No
USA Today	USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL per WP:RSP	While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent sources, and as nom points out the AMA source doesn't even mention them. This may simply be too soon but it is hard to tell because we don't have such basic information as educational dates. (I have a vague memory of having already seen this at afd but checked the delete log and didn't find it.) Lamona (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What's the best way to revert to draft? Can keep it just in case more press comes out and it meets guidelines in the future. Tunasaur (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of draftification is to hold an otherwise notable article that does not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards. As such, I don't really see a valid reason to draftify this; the subject isn't notable and we can't peer into a crystal ball to see what the future holds here, and I don't see a particular reason why coverage would be expected to arise in the next six months or so. If future coverage does wind up establishing notability, then the article could be refunded to the draftspace and submitted through Articles for Creation at that time—but that doesn't mean we should indefinitely keep a draft up on a non-notable WP:BLP subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis is convincing and I was unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV; although I am impressed with Sosa's scholarly publications at such a young age (this article in the National Library of Medicine is one example). I believe they are likely to be notable in the future, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON for an article.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (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.