Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireya Mayor


 * 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. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mireya Mayor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a pastiche of a number of sources, especially, and the cited sources. This article was written as if she were a Media personality, with the references and much of this text all apparently copies of the same press release and bioblurb, presumably written by her or her press agent. There is no true third party verification of any part of her adventures. A typical reference from Google is "has Mireya Mayor had her lips done? Expedition Bigfoot viewers question doctor's appearance" (and as PR it's out of date--she has also written an autobiography)

She is not a faculty member of any university, and never was. She is apparently director of Exploration and Science Communications at FIU

But she is a biologist, and might be notable, but the article would need to be totally rewritten, which I can do if I find an actual CV to establish the objective facts of her life. She did not discover a new lemur species--she has always worked as part of a team as a relatively junior member. - She has been one of the 14 coauthors on a major summary of lemur taxonomy, which was not a formal revision in the taxonomic sense, and she has been one of the 7 coauthors on two papers which have indeed formally revised the assignment of previously known lemurs into a different arrangement of species. This is noteworthy taxonomic work, but not necessarily for the junior members of a group, and I cannot tell from the available material that she was responsible for that work-  She's also published other papers, mostly as one of a number of junior coauthors, but some perhaps as the principle author--it will take a more detailed analysis.

Thisis a suitable place by TNT if there ever was. IThe only way to revise the article would be to remove almost all the content and the duplicative PR references  DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete there is a lot of press release puffery and no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any notability/truth to the new species she discovered? Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * She seems to be co-author on several papers about the discovery that turn up in a Google Scholar search, this would suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been little comment since this edit to the article - more discussion required.
 * Weak keep remove puffery and add concrete references — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Ritchie's relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- whether the aforementioned papers constitute notability is somewhat beside the point, because even if one considers her solely as a media figure, she would pass GNG. Not only has she been a host, correspondent, or cast member on multiple TV series from well-known broadcasters (e.g., National Geographic, Travel Channel, History Channel) -- which alone would pass WP:ENTERTAINER -- but her participation in those shows has received substantial coverage from reliable sources (e.g., CNN, NPR, PBS) with her as the focus, and two episodes she hosted were nominated for Emmy Awards. Being the subject of celebrity gossip does not inherently make someone non-notable, nor does puffery in an article (though obviously it should be cleaned up). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the aforementioned references to the article and cleaned up remaining puffery. The article should now very clearly demonstrate notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: article now looking good with sufficient citations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject now clearly passes GNG. - Astrophobe  (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I now consider it acceptable, assuming that someone will keep an eye on it to prevent re-inclusion of puffery.  DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I for one am more than happy to, I'll put it on my watchlist right now. - Astrophobe  (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per available references. Passes GNG. LucyLucy (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2021 (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.