Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Zacarias


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Michelle Zacarias

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

Not notable enough to the point where the page is a stub that previously looked like a subject-generated resume. She was a guest opinion piece writer on some of the sources listed, but the ones she actually works for don't have Wikipedia pages. It's also missing significant biographical information.

I'm not sure how to correctly nominate a page for deletion this way, as the rules prevent me from doing it the usual way given how this is an appeal of a nomination removal with which I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbz (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism,  and Women. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently looking like a résumé isn't a reason for deletion, as long as sources exist that could allow it to be rewritten more encyclopedically; that's a matter for editing, not deletion. People's World, where Zacarias was a staff writer from 2015 through 2019, has an article here. (As do Teen Vogue and Latina, as well as The Indypendent &mdash; not mentioned in the article, but Zacarias has written there . Ditto the Chicago Reader .) So, the claim in the nomination appears erroneous. That said, right or wrong, it's not relevant. Whether an author's primary affiliation has an article or not doesn't have an implication one way or the other about whether that author is, individually, notable. On the face of it, "missing significant biographical information" would be grounds to keep the article, i.e., it's saying that there's more to say. However, looking at the page history, the "biographical information" to which the nominator refers appears to be a BLP violation, so that doesn't really factor in either way. I'm tempted to suggest that WP:CSK applies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I agree with the above. The sources demonstrate notability. The page can be improved DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the subject is notable enough to keep the article and improve it. I tried to add sources and expand the article, sorry if it sounded too much like a resume but I'm sort of new and I tried my best. I welcome good-faith edits to improve the article to make it more encyclopedic. I think that the subject was nominated to the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame makes her notable. I contributed to this article because I believe in decreasing the gender gap on Wikipedia (like the Women in Red WikiProject) and coverage on subjects that identify as LGBT, disabled, or other identities that are often overlooked. NatFee (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- She won the Saul Miller Excellence in Journalism Award, given by AFL-CIO for excellent coverage of union issues. This along with the arguments made by my colleagues above seems to me to be sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to meet notability even if the article needs to be improved. Also, she has received a major award and other significant recognition. Rublamb (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:16, 30 November 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.