Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Andiola


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Erika Andiola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG For someone who is referred to as “prominent”, there is a neglible amount of coverage about her to establish an article (don’t get mad at me when I say it’s because of her immigration status that most facts can’t be verified.) Washington Post source is supposed to be about her yet only mentions her a few times and in the headline they only refer to her as staffer; the article is more related to Bernie Sanders. CNN article article also doesn’t even name her in headline and article is more about her mother. There is no independent coverage to establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep She is quoted as an activist in several articles not referenced here, including the Chicago Tribune in 2016 and 2017, the Austin-American Statesman in 2017 , and the Los Angeles Times in 2018 . RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 2018 LA Times: she is only mentioned in one sentence; the article is not about her at all. Basically media keep quoting her as an activist but no independent sources expand on that, especially without focusing on her mother or employer. Chicago Tribune article doesn’t even include her name in the headline (for an article that supposed to highlight her) and the author has a personal connection to her. Statesman’s headline calls her DACA recipient, not her name, but the article itself gave a 404 error. Anyone can call her an activist but being a DREAMer is not notability. If it was there would be 3.6 million new articles.Trillfendi (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable activist lacking significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added more sources to the article. She first went "viral" in 2013. However, there is good coverage of her over time after that, especially in the Nation. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Still, to be honest, these rely on her circumstances rather than actual notability of herself for her career. I have yet to see a source actually independently (like I said before, one of those sources had a personal connection to her) delve into her activism without including her mother in it (she’s not a teenager anymore), politicians she’s worked for, or the Dream Act. Prime examples: "Arizona Immigration Activist Hired to Work for Bernie Sanders Campaign", “. "Illegal immigrant students' hopes dashed with DREAM Act's failure in U.S",  "Agents take mother of immigration activist in night home raid",  "Immigrants Arrested Near Capitol During DACA Protest", and "Sanders-founded group likely to part with staffer who tweeted about 'illegal immigrants'". HuffPost was the only one to call her by her name. What do we even know about her activism besides being personally affected by DACA? Can someone find sources on that? (Emma González, for example, also went viral but she has significant coverage (not passing mentions or inherited notability) from reliable sources about her work. They even put her name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as subject easily passes WP:GNG. Even under the non-policy, non-guideline "name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her" criterion introduced into this discussion, the subject passes, see e.g. Thanks to  for putting in the work to improve the article. Bakazaka (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Per above editors. There are plenty of sources not in the article that discuss her in some depth.  She's widely quoted in news articles, which is a good proxy for notability for activists, that their views are sought out by professional journalists. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.