Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Rodón Naveira


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Miriam Rodón Naveira

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not think that there is actually any notability here.

I see no evidence she is the senior physical sciences manager, despite what the article says, but rather a senior physical sciences manager; ref.2 lists her as Senior Safety Technical Manager. The actual work accomplishments are "involved with" or "participates in" or "supported" or something of the sort  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - She was the first Hispanic woman to hold the Deputy Directorship for the Environmental Sciences Division within the National Exposure Research Laboratory. Plus she is responsible for developing, coordinating and maintaining research and educational activities in support of NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center mission. I believe that being "first" among her people in such an important delicate position in a semi-governmental agency such as NASA makes her notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a huge number of bios from "first hispanic to do INSERT DEBATABLE ACHIEVEMENT HERE" around. Her notability should be based on her works regardless of her origins. --damiens.rf 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first statement is WP:OTHERSTUFF and, thus, irrelevant here. As for the second statement, her notability -is- based on her achievements (erroneously called "works" above). So what you are saying amounts to agreement on how to reword the lede to reflect achievement vs. ethnic origin, namely, a WP:Content dispute. As such, your comment belongs in a WP:DISPUTE forum, not here. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or fix. The article, as it stands, do not show the subject's notability. --damiens.rf 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is 6 January 2014 and, since your 26 December 2013 comment above, the article was expanded from 5,723 bytes to 9,119 - an almost 100% expansion. Yet you have remained mysteriously quiet. Nothing personal, but you seem to have failed to stand up to the plate and update the basis of your stand accordingly. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Certainly, first member of [ethnic minority] to hold [lesser leadership position] at [marginally notable research institute] is not by itself grounds for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This comment, too, is obsolete. The article -was- expanded (since the comment was made) to show that her notability was not based on being the first person from a certain ethnic background to accomplish something but that she was the first person to accomplish something period, or that she accomplished unique as reflected in The Awards Bestowed Upon Her and subsequently memorialized by the WP:RS that reported it. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're free to express your opposition to it, of course, but I stand by my opinion. Perhaps if there were two sources at the level of the Newton book, I might change my mind, but the other sources that were added don't convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Mercy11: The awards you mentioned (listed in the article) are all non-notable in and of themselves (for example none of them have their own WP page, nor are they documented by secondary sources). Agricola44 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep - The article and her notability are perfectly in line with every applicable WP policy. That she is senior, junior, or something in between, who cares? what matters is that she has been recognized extensively by many authorities and she has numerous newspapers, magazines and publishers WP:RS's that have reported on her work and accomplishments and that her work is cited by yet many other scientific authorties. I am not sure how anyone can say she is not notable with the load of accolades she has to her credit. Certainly a KEEP. Mercy11 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. She meets WP:BASIC quite easily since she:


 * The first independent & secondary reliable source comes from the book Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions by David E. Newton; see her bio within the book at: where she is covered exclusively.


 * She is then covered once again exclusively by Latina Style at.


 * And then she is covered by The Antelope Valley Times at


 * Not only that, but she also meets WP:PROF per Criterion #2 which establishes that academics meeting this criterion are notable if:


 * Rodón has received not one, but two "highly prestigious honors at the national level". Namely, her EPA Silver Medal for Superior Service and her EPA Suzanne Olive EEO and Diversity Award. The Silver Medal is awarded for (see ):


 * So, the whole sum of all these facts make her notable by our standards: she is covered by reliable sources + she is "unusual". The fact that she was the first Hispanic woman director is ancillary to this matter. She is notable for other hierarchically higher characteristics.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see abundant sourcing, real-world achievements, professional and peer recognition.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to keep this one, and I really hope more sources will be forthcoming, but I don't see the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Nor are the awards "highly prestigious academic award[s] or honor[s] at a national or international level" -- they do not satisfy WP:PROF. Her h-index appears to be 2, which doesn't pass WP:PROF either. The coverage in Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions might tip the balance, but I can't see that online. -- 101.119.29.11 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hummm,,,, "facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, an anonymous response! It's nice to see that irony is not dead. And the comment above does present "facts and evidence." -- 101.119.29.186 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this link working for you for the book citation: It's working for me. Here's a screenshot for your convenience:  &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't seem to work in Australia. The screenshot certainly demonstrates that there's coverage of the subject, although it doesn't say very much (other than the fact that the subject has a famous mother). -- 101.119.29.172 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of significant scientific impact. It's hard for administrators to demonstrate notability but I guess that's the career they choose. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * The word "impact" is not used anywhere in the pertinent Polices and guidelines, that is, WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:BIO. As such, this argument lacks merit, grounds and validity. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources listed here are enough to establish notability.--Jmundo (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Xxanthippe. -- 101.119.29.108 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mr. Suckup". Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that kind of personal remark is helpful here. Perhaps instead you could dig out more sources, which might cause editors to change their !vote? Or perhaps you could verify whether the Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions book contains enough to satisfy WP:GNG? -- 101.119.28.143 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not personal; it is the term used in the link provided and I reused it as appears. A copy if the term (Suckup) then facilitates searching and finding the expanded description text in the link. You should not take it personal, it was meant for the closing admin, not you. It was not meant for you personally or about you personally, but about your comment. It's my opinion of your comment and was simply stating that others (link provided) also see those types of commnets like that - you provided a !vote, not a discussion contribution as explained there. You should not take it personal.Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything here is meant for the closing admin, obviously...and such remarks are personal and tend to inflame what we hope to keep as a civil debate. Next time, please just cite the policy. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Delete. The above "keep" !votes are mostly vague assertions, "real-world achievements" and the like, or list local sources. At first glance, the strongest pro-argument seems to be the EPA silver medal, but this does not yet appear to be recognized as a notable award. None of the other awards in the "accolades and recognitions" section are major, or recognized either. Most of the sources are web-pages, an all-too-frequent occurrence on WP that we should all be trying to remedy (some of these are actually broken links). The bio in "Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions" is solid. If one or two more WP:RS like this could be found, it might be enough for WP:GNG pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment - The policy says: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Since Latinos... is solid plus there other multiple sources listed that are consistent with "Latinos...", then she is notable. It's that simple. Mercy11 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, it's not that simple. The other sources are mostly web pages (ephemeral, not independent of subject, and some broken links). The Antelope Valley source is merely a community webzine. The Latina Style piece helps, but the overall source base is not enough. The article strains to make the subject appear notable (a link to the EPA award which actually goes to a general page, repeating the Latinos in Science ref to make the source list appear longer, etc). Moreover, the assertions of notability are very weak, for example first Hispanic woman to serve as a branch chief: this is a middle-management position in the aerospace sector (govt and commercial), so this milestone is not notable per se. Ditto for being "frequently invited as a speaker on scientific topics" ... These are the routine activities of scientists and engineers. If you'll pardon a blunt assessment, the subject appears to be a very competent but very average mid-level aerospace worker. Agricola44 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
 * What's wrong with an online web-anything? Following that webzine logic we would have to argue that online institutions, such as online banks like Ally and CapitalOne, should also be stayed away from. Where does AVT say it is a webzine? That "about" link simply talks about their history. Even if it was an online magazine, what's wrong with that so long as they have their own editorial staff? IAE, since they state the are a news provider, the "magazine" label would be incorrect as it is in the order of an online newspaper. And following that logic, we won't be able to cite the NYT when it does go entirely online. Again, let's not judge the policy, it states there is no fixed number of sources needed. Likewise for the label of "middle manager"...do you need to become a scientist-CEO or an University President-scholar to be notable? If a mix of sources are writing about her plus others are writing about her writings, wouldn't that be plenty notability? We need to go by the policy, not by our perception of what a given source -of many- is or is not, right? Mercy11 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you're saying the (1) Antelope Valley source (they call themselves an online community news forum) is an important contribution to notability and (2) that the fact that she is a mid-level worker does not really matter. I disagree on both points. As for point (1), there is a hierarchy of sources. For example, the NYT and my neighborhood newspaper both, in fact, have editorial staffs, but a mention in the latter counts for little, since the bar for inclusion is very low. (They tend to write articles like "2nd grade votes Mrs. Jones teacher of the month" and such.) The Antelope Valley source is much closer to this than it is to being a piece in the NYT and, in my opinion, does not go to notability. (Otherwise, every "Mrs. Jones" would be notable.) As to point (2), the article needs a substantive assertion of notability and it must be something more than her job description as a mid-level scientist/manager or that she is "frequently invited as a speaker". Because of her background and employment, WP:PROF is probably the relevant guideline and it is pretty specific as far as the different ways as person might satisfy the notability requirement. Frankly, I'm just not seeing it in this case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC).


 * I didnt say she was a mid level worker - you did. I didnt say she was a mid-level manager - you did. What I did say is that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected," and this article fulfills both. If we read up on Antelope Valley, it is obvious why the Antelope Valley Times would not have time to cover Mrs Jones' 2nd grade class: with a dozen high schools and several universities in its Valley area, Mrs. Jones 2nd grade students just couldn't make it into their paper. The AVT is not the primary source here; its only one of many.  Mercy11 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is that she is indeed a mid-level manager, and this does not contribute to notability (there are many, many such). Also, the Antelope Valley Times is a local paper that does not contribute to notability; many people get mentioned in such papers, as Agricola44 points out. I think the best claim to notability is the single book source, but even it doesn't seem to say much other than mention the subject's more notable mother. The subject also fails WP:PROF. -- 101.119.27.219 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: New anonynympus IP account that -- from his wikilinked argument and his one lonely single edit -- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Seems likely. Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A dynamic IP address perhaps? But maybe you could leave that to the closing admin, and look for sources establishing notability, if indeed they exist. -- 101.119.28.232 (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2014 (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.