Talk:Karla Cornejo Villavicencio

Article does not strongly support notability of the individual
This article is very much written such that it focuses on and establishes the notability of the book The Undocumented Americans, rather than the notability of the author. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally having written one notable book is sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

removal of content
Hey,, the inclusion of a personal life section is pretty standard. I'm not sure why you're objecting to the inclusion of these details. Let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it’s possible, I agree with you both? A personal life section is standard, but I was also uncomfortable with the level of detail, which seemed a bit intrusive. I think I would support reducing the section to:
 * Cornejo Villavicencio has written about her mental illness, which she says her doctors attribute to the trauma of her childhood separation. She lives in New Haven, Connecticut with her spouse, Talya Zemach-Bersin.
 * My 2p, anyway. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I think the information about DACA and green card received via marriage (and now expired) are important -- her book, which is her main claim to fame, is about undocumented Americans. Her initial brush with fame was for an article she wrote about being undocumented and attending Harvard. Her documentation status is mentioned in literally every article about her. We could put it into another section, but I think it needs to be included somewhere. I don't care about the dog lol. —valereee (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , lol about the dog! Agree her status should be in the article, and it is, both in the lead and in the section about college. I think maybe it’s the blow by blow of her status details that felt a bit much to me—if I were going to make a true policy arg, it would maybe be WP:NOTNEWS. The “as of October 2020..,” is a red flag to me on whether it’s enduring encyclopedic content or more “breaking news” type info that doesn’t make the cut for a true overall summary of her life. Am I making sense—I need more coffee! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither her former DACA status nor her temporary green card status are mentioned anywhere? I can fit the DACA into the college section, but is there any good place for the temporary green card but the personal section, where we talk about her being married? I get your point about the news, but mentioning DACA without mentioning the change in status seems like leaving info off because it's changeable rather than because, being changeable, it's just breaking news, if you see what I mean. That is, ten years from now, assuming her status has been resolved for good, I'd probably argue for a line saying something like "CV was a DACA recipient, then for a brief period upon her marriage a temporary green card holder, and became a naturalized citizen in 2028" or something similar. It's noteworthy information about her life. It just isn't resolved yet. If she weren't notable because of issues arount her undocumented status, I wouldn't be making this argument, FWIW. I don't care what Fareed Zakaria's immigration status is; that's nothing to do with what he's notable for. —valereee (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hear you, so I revisited the sources and the entry itself—I think the main thing that the nitty gritty of her status would clarify is that she’s been able to work, so it does seem worth noting she’s a DACA recipient. Could be noted where she mentions not wanting to write about DACA/DREAMers. Beyond that, the more recent play-by-play doesn’t seem encyclopedic to me yet. Partly because it’s only mentioned once in one source (in 10 years I imagine we’d have more sources either mentioning or not), partly because I don’t see that there’s been any significant change in her life based on one of these adjustments—bottom line, she’s still without permanent status, which is clear from the entry.
 * What do you think? And maybe we’ll hear from too. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with whatever consensus we can come to. If/when there are future mentions of the recent stuff, which is probably likely, we can revisit. No deadlines. :) —valereee (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think? And maybe we’ll hear from too. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with whatever consensus we can come to. If/when there are future mentions of the recent stuff, which is probably likely, we can revisit. No deadlines. :) —valereee (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)