Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandisa Greene


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mandisa Greene

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has 36 members of its council, and I see no reason why its Junior Vice-President is inherently notable. The only substantive source is the RCVS itself, which is not independent of the topic. The others include a mirror of that article, an internal publication, and some passing mentions of being a new member. Reywas92Talk 07:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not remotely close to passing GNG nor PROF.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. As previously noted on the talk page, the claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that she is the first of a particular group to achieve a particular position, but the position itself is not notable. Melcous (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with Melcous. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a practicing vet, active in her professional association, no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, possibly the "Officials" section; people looking up that organization may plausibly want to know when it passed a demographic milestone. (I mean, that's the kind of thing I've tried to find out about professional organizations in my own field, and it can be vexing.) E.g., The first person from an ethnic minority to join the RCVS Officer Team was Mandisa Greene, a graduate of the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies raised in Trinidad and Tobago, who was elected in 2019. Short, to the point, makes WP:PRESERVE happy, satisfies WP:DUE and leaves open the possibility for future expansion should events warrant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the claim: "She was the first person from an ethnic minority to be elected to the RCVS Officer Team." cannot possibly be true as written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is what the source says . I think that a source from the organization itself, though not independent, is adequate for this purpose. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't strike me as an unlikely claim? Small team, long tenures, white male-dominated profession, body with "venerable traditions"... that can take 175 years. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "first person from an ethnic minority" to serve as an officer in a U.K. Royal College founded 1844 would most likely have been Irish, or an immigrant from some other part of Europe who was ethnically not English (putting an Irishman on a Board used to be a big deal.) The source says "black." That is plausible, but it is not significant unless someone can support it with an INDEPENDENT source.  English royal colleges and so forth have had officers of West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, etc. ancestry for so long that this is trivial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why a further source would be necessary for that point; it does not strike me as "likely to be challenged". Had I read that sentence in the article on the Royal College without this biography ever having been created, I would have seen it as entirely unremarkable, and the source from the organization itself would have seemed adequate to support the mere sentence devoted to the point. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PRIMARY material is inadequate as an argument for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is about what articles should exist, not what should be included within the articles that do. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, E.M.Gregory. The organization's records are just about the only reliable source that such a statement should be based on; nothing wrong with the source. The question is whether the statement from whatever source establishes notability - which I believe it does not. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it wasn't my tree. The argument someone made was that this "first" confers notability.  My point is that a "first" can only contribute to notability if there is SECONDARY, SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2019 (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.