Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josefa Masegosa Gallego


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Josefa Masegosa Gallego

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a scientist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for scientists. This is a one-sentence article of the "she is a person who exists, the end" variety without actually detailing anything about her career that could be measured against the inclusion criteria for scientists at all, which is not enough in and of itself -- and it's referenced solely to a single 172-word blurb in a "ten local women of distinction" listicle in the local newspaper of the big city close to her hometown, which is not enough coverage to claim that she would pass WP:GNG. And while there is an article about her on the Spanish Wikipedia, it's referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and pages not found rather than GNG-building reliable sources, so there are no legitimate new sources there that can simply be pulled over here either. As I don't have access to the resources needed to dig into Spanish-language sourcing, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with more Spanish language skills than I've got can find sufficient coverage to expand and improve the article with -- but just single-sourcing the fact that she exists isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science,  and Spain. Bearcat (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's been improved since the nomination and we should !vote not based on how the article was, but what sources exist. My searches find at least three suggesting local notability and awards. It's local only, hence the "weak"
 * https://www.lavozdealmeria.com/noticia/12/almeria/186055/josefa-masegosa-mujer-de-las-galaxias
 * https://www.granadahoy.com/vivir/galardon-labor-BcientificaB_0_1254775017.html
 * https://www.lavozdealmeria.com/noticia/12/almeria/233137/ocho-mujeres-que-abren-puertas-y-rompen-techos-de-cristal CT55555 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Searching Google Scholar for author:Josefa-Masegosa finds citation counts 275, 168, 156, 153, 122, 102, 101, possibly enough for a case for WP:PROF although the case is less strong than it might appear just from the numbers because these are multi-author papers and she's not first. I think the better case is through WP:GNG and the nontrivial coverage of her in La Voz de Almería (three-paragraph section of a longer article) and Mujeres con ciencia  (similar length standalone web page in a larger web site). The nomination makes much of the statement that the article was only one sentence long at the time of nomination (it has been expanded since) but that is an extremely poor rationale for a deletion nomination, having nothing to do with the inherent notability of the subject, especially as its shortness was entirely because it was a brand-new article. Notability does not go away merely because you think the article should be expanded but lack the language skills to do it yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS the links by CT55555 above add to notability in the same way, and here's another from Europa Press: . —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is also not automatically presumed for every article that anybody deigns to create. While an article obviously doesn't have to already be FA-class quality right off the bat, it is still fundamentally the job of the article's creator to make sure that the article actually contains a basic notability claim, and some proper reliable sourcing for it, right off the bat, and not anybody else's job to leave an article that has neither of those things unquestioned just because future improvement is theoretically possible — anybody can say that future improvement is theoretically possible about absolutely anything and anybody, so even outright hoaxes would no longer be deletable from Wikipedia at all if musing about theoretical future expansion were all it took to exempt creators from having to actually include a basic notability claim in the article from the get-go. So the onus is on the creator to make sure they at least write and source enough about the person to demonstrate that she has a valid notability claim in the first place, not on me to guess at things the article doesn't say — especially after I do check the Spanish article and it doesn't contain any better sourcing, or say anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any better sourcing, either, which means I did more than enough work to satisfy any reasonable reading of WP:BEFORE. So if you can improve the article with enough better sourcing to make it keepable, then just improve it and don't attack me when I didn't do a damn thing wrong. Even "the article is new" still does not exempt anybody from "the article has to at least state and source a basic notability claim in the first place". Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article had a reference though to an article about how she's a notable woman from that area, "De distintas generaciones y profesionales, diez mujeres que han roto barreras y abierto camino." And that source per La Voz de Almería is a leading regional newspaper. It's better if everything's there all laid out for us, but sometimes it's not. It's just as easy to fix up the article a bit as to nominate it for deletion. Jahaza (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One reference from the local newspaper in a person's own hometown local area is not in and of itself sufficient to demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia — so there's no reason why any responsible or remotely competent editor would or should ever look at an article that said "subject is a person who exists, the end", referenced that existence solely to one reference from the local newspaper in the subject's own hometown local area, and decide that was enough to forestall a deletion discussion in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say "sufficient to demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia", what policy guideline do you think you are referring to? There is nothing in WP:GNG, for instance, about the locality of coverage, only its depth and reliability (and there is no reason to expect lower reliability for a hometown newspaper). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to discuss improvements made and assess new sources Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete . I am not seeing a pass of either NPROF or GNG. Astrophysics is a very high-citation field, so her citation record is not outstanding relative to others. The Mujeres con Ciencia site referenced above is a blog, so cannot be used at all ❌. The first La Voz article is a pure interview/written by her and so fails independence ❌. The GH source is a passing mention ❌. The second La Voz article has two independent sentences and so also fails SIGCOV ❌. JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Newer sources look much closer to meeting GNG. An assessment of their reliability/independence would be beneficial. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to further discuss sources newly presented Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions on sources are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this AfD has been going on, yet another newspaper story on her has appeared in another paper: And another older in-depth source, of unclear reliability:  —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per WP:HEY. For the record, this is the version nominated in the procedure. User:Bearcat has been criticized unjustly above, though choosing merely to draftify this page might have been simpler. While a reasonable WP:BEFORE is expected of the nominator (and was performed in this case), the ONUS of sourcing is on the page creator SikiWtideI, who should be building articles longer than a single sentence before putting them in mainspace. Reading User talk:SikiWtideI reveals a number of recent cases in which the user started an article which would not have passed AfC and was draftified. I'm happy the article looks good now and appreciate the good faith sourcing applied. But lay off Bearcat, who has done exactly nothing improper here. BusterD (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2023 (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.