Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Rose Vera


 * 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 Trans Lifeline. Clearly not keep; split between delete and merge/redirect.  Sandstein  17:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Elena Rose Vera

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Meatsgains. I had to really look for any coverage, and the coverage I did find was definitely not significant. Very weak keep with the sources put in (thanks ), I think it's OK, but it requires some work still. Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Trans Lifeline as an alternative to deletion. TJMSmith (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Trans Lifeline. There is significant coverage about the org that establishes solid WP:GNG but that doesn’t necessitate a separate article for this individual. Merging would be more appropriate. SVUKnight (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no stand-alone notability in this individual, therefore no need for a redirect. Solid delete. No coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  10:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Trans Lifeline. (BTW, interestingly, today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just added more info with many citations. I think the individual qualifies as notable. Visit page and see. Will continue adding more info w/citations. Please feel free to contribute info w/appropriate citations. Rock on! --Caterpillar84 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete In future I do believe she’d pass WP:GNG but as per WP:CRYSTALBALL I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I get what you all are saying; makes sense on the one hand, but as Celestina007 points out, Wikipedia is moving in such a direction as to create a case for inclusion, and not simply because of the direction but rather the notability of the organization for which she is president, along with her other accomplishments in public-facing roles. I'd say we give her a shot and let it ride. I think she's a valuable, if understated, player. Keep in mind a gender and sexuality bias; as trans people have to maintain a level of invisibility or low profile for personal safety, it could stand to reason that she doesn't often or frequently engage with mainstream media outlets. Doing so would, by relationship, make her a target by their very reportage of her existence.--Caterpillar84 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure if folks read what I typed above but how do you feel about what I stated? And it seems Celestina007 sees a case for leaving the article alone as well. Does anyone mind if I eliminate the deletion nomination template on the page? Thanks so much, --Caterpillar84 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping:, please review the added sources?
 * , please do not remove the nomination template. The discussion's closer will do that. By the way, the participants will be looking for significant reliable source coverage, not just mentions. (not watching, please )  czar  13:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no case developing for keeping this article, do NOT remove the Afd template. If there was some minor coverage perhaps enough to support WP:THREE references, enough to keep it as wee seed article, then fair enough it would be kept. Unfortunately there no coverage, not a sausage, not a single standalone reference that would support the case. Null sources. Not even the usual Apple podcast stuff that tends to have the very newest stuff, newest people, newest trends and so on, which would suggest the subject was at least on the horizon. I see no reason for a non-notable redirect that will be deleted a few short years up the road.   scope_creep Talk  14:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and comments. Caterpillar84 has been pointed to several policies and guides over the past month by numerous editors to help them improve their editing and creation, but this does not seem to be getting through in the slightest. This case is no different. I wouldn't be surprised to find them at ANI in the near future if they continue down this road. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Vaseline, ok, now you're just attacking me. Have you AT ALL looked at the numerous articles I've created, with the VAST MAJORITY meeting every last guideline and criteria, with numerous editors THANKING ME and happily CONTRIBUTING to the articles I've created?! You're implying that "numerous" editors have "disciplined" me or something like that. That is NOT what has occurred in the slightest. Save for a MERE two sort of nasty encounters, those instances have been far outweighed by KIND, HELPFUL folks who have pointed me in the right direction, lending a helping hand with NO argument, NO protest, and NO contest from me. Peaceful interactions working out kinks; there has been mutual help in the LEARNING PROCESS. Why on earth are you taking such a hostile, disciplinary approach? I am extremely well-intentioned, enthusiastic, and like I said, the VAST MAJORITY of my articles have been reviewed with NO COMPLAINT. Just because you see a CIVIL discussing occurring doesn't mean it's time to dogpile. Have you reviewed the wiki ETIQUETTE pages and "How Not to Bite New Editors"? Because YOU are in severe violation on many counts. You have now stalked me on every page that I'm engaging in CIVIL discussions with other editors on. If you don't leave me alone, I will take every measure to report you. --Caterpillar84 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with the unfounded accusations. Don't want to get too off topic, but I'll leave it at this - several experienced editors have brought to your attention several policies on several occasions that I do not think you are taking the time to go through. If you have, you would find yourself in a much better situation when you edit and create articles. If you have, you would not have asked the question to remove the AfD template, as people have told you that is not allowed before. Perhaps you are still learning, but at the moment, although some have thanked you for great additions, I still see an overall disregard for citation and notability policies, as some of your edits and creations have been a burden to the project, when the burden should fall on you (the one adding info). We tell you this only for your benefit, well, and the project's benefit. Like someone had told you, I too believe you can make valuable contributions here, but until you familiarize yourself with some of the basic guides here, you may continue to have a frustrating experience. If you have any other comments, please leave me a note on my talk page. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee</b>★★★ 17:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Scope Creep--thanks so much for the feedback. I would push back a little on the point you brought up about Apple podcasts--Vera is the sole guest on Queery's Episode #93 as well as WayPoint's Save Point radio--the full episode is dedicated to her. I like your sausages joke, but how are all the citations not even worth a future save...especially in light of what I said above about the public-facing visibility issues trans leaders have to consider in proportion to the violence they face. I think we have to keep in mind that trans leaders who are not in the entertainment industry (and hence are not likely to have funds for bodyguards and the like) have to balance their exposure with the real-life threat of bodily violence. So it's a paradox for them in that they are notable/noteworthy in their roles and accomplishments but simultaneously face erasure, such as our case here on wiki. If these folks are measuring how often they speak to media outlets due to fear of hate crimes targeting them, how can we, the public, then file them in the "noteworthy" category when our tools for doing so have built-in biases? I mean, ultimately, if the page gets deleted, so be it, but I am trying to employ critical thinking, nuance, and empathy rather than just cut-and-dry bias-informed policy. Over and out, your wiki pal, --Caterpillar84 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.