Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Miranda


 * 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. Tone 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Vivian Miranda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article's sources are not independent - the subject's employer, and a press release from the institution that gave her an award. I can't find any independent sources giving her significant coverage, and so can't see how she passes WP:GNG; she is an early career scholar, having completed her PhD in 2015, and I'm not seeing how she passes WP:NPROF either. Regretfully, I think this is a delete. Girth Summit  (blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Postdocs are usually not yet notable (that's still true for assistant professors, the next step up the ladder), and an award to support a postdoc is also not enough for notability. It's difficult to find the astronomical Vivian Miranda publications among all the non-astronomy publications by other Vivians Miranda, and among all the other astronomy publications by Vinicius and Valmin and other Vs Miranda, but it's clear from the difficulty of finding them that they're not cited highly enough to make a surprise case for WP:PROF. There is a little popular-press media for being transgender but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Return to Draft world It looks like this was promoted from sandbox-draft status the same day it was created. I don't think there's yet a case for passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, but the content isn't so objectionable that it has to be expunged. It can live on as a userspace draft indefinitely, or in Draft space proper for months (coming back to edit an academic biography to reset the G13 clock every semester is not so arduous). Also, I think the press release from Brookhaven counts as adequately "independent": it's by the organization who chose to give her an award, not by Miranda herself, and not by her employer or by any of the schools where she studied. The same goes for the notice by the Sociedade Brasileira de Física. Alternatively, we could add a little bit to the Leona Woods article about the award named in her honor, mention Miranda as the first recipient, and (for the time being) redirect this page there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been working on this article today and am continuing to do so. I believe it more robustly demonstrates GNG notability at this time. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have standards for what it takes to be notable as an academic. They are in WP:PROF, not GNG. She clearly fails to meet any of them. So any notability will have to rely on non-academic material, not on puffing up the details of academic projects in which she is a minor participant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of NACADEMIC is, based on it saying "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines" is that an academic who does not meet NACADMIC but still meets GNG is still notable. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur. An academic that fails NACADEMIC but passes GNG is notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. But the argument for notability will have to be that she is covered in nontrivial detail in independent reliable sources, not that she won the Woods Lectureship nor that she is the only Brazilian on a multi-billion-dollar academic project. Incidentally, is "trans" as a noun rather than an adjective considered acceptable language, or is it a bad translation of the source titles? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bad translation. The GLAAD style guide, for example, treats trans as a short form of transgender, and says that the latter should be used as an adjective, not a noun. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete people who are still at the post-doc stage are almost never notable. Nothing here suggests otherwise for this individual. I have had enough articles on Ph.D. holding professors with several years of teaching and multiple publications deleted to know that Miranda is no where near making the cut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough there yet for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:20, 15 October 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.