Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucía Abello

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Abello

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lucía Abello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Virc587 (the creator) with the following rationale "prevent the proposed deletion". Thank you for the eloquent defense, but let's discuss this here now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is definitely not notable and the article is written in a promotional manner. Almost all the references are self published or otherwise unsuitable (Flickr as a reference? Really?). Half of the references are by Abello herself which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I appreciate that the article creator is attempting to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia, but that does not allow for notability rules to be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Piotrus:, thanks for writing. This is the first time I have experienced a delete proposal, I hope I am responding appropriately.

This article meets the necessary criteria for notability,

it has awards and distinctions cited in references 5, 10 and 11. It has indexed and referenced publications (12 to 21) and
it also has a strong profile in Gscholar, available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Luc%C3%ADa+Abello&btnG=

I will be very attentive to understand if you have another point of view and that we can improve this biography.

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virc587 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Virc587: With all due respect, having 'indexed and referenced publications' is not enough to meet the criteria. They need to be significant, which can be shown by being called such by other scholars, or by having very high citation numbers in a given field. The linked GSchjolar profile shows one book co-authored with 3 other people that have 53 citations, and nothing else in double digits. In my experience, that's too little by at least a factor of 10. Granted, those are subjective criteria, and we will see what others will say, but IMHO this is not enough to meet WP:PROF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit rather weakly. It is always difficult to assess people who don't sit neatly in a 'typical' category. We have guidelines on notability of actors, sportspeople and professors, but we don't have a guideline for librarians. We evaluate business awards daily, but who knows which awards for librarians are meaningful? We have to think about what notability really means: it means do other, unrelated people actually listen to this person, has this person made a splash, not by self-advertisement, but by doing things that the world cares about? We might measure notability in strict ways described in the guidelines, but with odd professions, we have to revisit the underlying meaning to check our assessment is fair, given the opportunities available to the subject (e.g. sportspeople easily get in newspapers compared to architects, but can't get chosen for a gallery like an artist; each profession has its own public sphere). Abello has publications (lots), her name crops up all over the place when I do some Google searching, she's clearly doing a lot more than the normal librarianing; she has copious awards whose value is difficult to assess, but which are almost certainly meaningful. I can't think how, as a librarian, someone could make a much bigger impact on the public stage than she has; her impact is certainly, translated between the worlds of libraries and professorships, as large as a professor in a named chair editing a journal somewhere (who would have qualified as notable twice-over on those grounds), and translated to sports-speak, she appears to play for her national librarianship side at an international level. Elemimele (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The cookie-cutter prod made bland generic comments about the sources without addressing the fact that the article was translating from another language Wikipedia and that the many sources are all in Spanish — a language for which the nominator does not claim even minimal competence. This lack of language makes the nominator's claims unreliable and implausible. And the AfD nomination does little but cut/paste the cut/paste while insulting the page's creator, who does seem fluent in the language. So, there's not a credible case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are her own publications, the websites of institutions that gave her awards, or interviews, so they're not independent of the subject. This already addresses both points raised in the deprod rationale. The weak keep vote above probably overstates the difficulty of assessing notability. And the nominator's lack of fluency in Spanish is irrelevant since the article is in English. Avilich (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although also a weak keep. I think at least some of the sources (not many, I agree) are independent and reliable. In my opinion this coverage together with her work is enough to meet notability (barely). --Alan Islas (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources even approaching your description, 3 (very brief) and 5, are simply outlines of the subject's credentials in the context of her appointment to a local library. It's the sort of thing you mention if a person is notable, but does not itself establish notability. There's also the source in citations 1 and 9, a small profile of the subject on a government website. There is no wp:sigcov here. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abello meets WP:ANYBIO 2 on libraries and botanics, documenting the Chilean flora, is a very specialized topic but not for that less relevant, following Elemimele argument; also meets WP:AUTHOR 3 in my opinion. I don't agree with Avilich's argument about not being independent, she is a Chilean librarian and got awards from library associations from other countries than Chile, her own country like Spain, Peru and is part of an Iberoamerican group, making her work recognized internationally in her field which in addition I think speaks about not being on WP:MILL. The biography has independent, reliable sources from the public and private sector (references 1 to 5) and Flickr is a reference, as Trainsandotherthings mentioned but to illustrate her work documenting the flora in Chile with more than 10.000 pics of local species, something that can be useful to people looking for sources on the topic, not to claim notability as Trainsandotherthings wrongly understood the reference. Hiperterminal (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hiperterminal Which reliable source says her work on documenting Chilean flora is significant? And Flickr is not a WP:RS. The awards are interesting, but we need evidence that they are significant; we can't assume they are just because they exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As before, I am not arguing that Flickr is a WP:RS or independent regarding Abello but is a proof of her prolific work. El Quinto Poder is. I am a librarian, involved in the library field, attending to conferences and meeting people regularly to see who is working on what, so I guess I have a position to know, the work of Lucia is quite unique not just on botanic, but the mix between libraries and environment; Piotrus if you know about any other librarian around the world, working on libraries and botanic I agree that Lucia's bio is not relevant but in exchange we should be writing that other person's bio, otherwise she is highly relevant for the library field for her work. On the other hand, now that you talked to me directly I want to support [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]'s comment on WP:BITE, for me you have been very rude to Virc587 and at least she deserves an apology from you for mocking her. Thanks for your comments and very happy to read what do you think about it. Hiperterminal (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing how ANYBIO2 is met, it explicitly says a topic needs to be significantly covered like any other. The sources don't provide this significant coverage. Source 5 for instance is the very association which gave the subject her award (not independent). Source 1=2 is a small profile on a government website. Source 4 doesn't mention the subject at all; source 3 does it only once and in passing. In all, that's not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Following Elemimele´s argument, effectively the notoriety criteria in the library field could not be the same as other areas. It would not be fair to put a librarian versus a mathematician on the same level in terms of academic production and citation, for example. On the other hand, Lucia makes an intersection between library science and botany. Dismissing the reference to flickr when it becomes an instrument of visual documentation of the Chilean flora, which later is a resource to bring ideas about the preservation of natural heritage through libraries, is unfortunate. Virc587 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was mentioned earlier that the article is written in a promotional way, but I don't think so; it tells of the particular work that Lucia (as a librarian and biologist) has done in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, from IFLA and the UN. I am a fellow librarian who particularly admires this biography because of the issues it addresses - closely related to SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change...), and SDG 15 (Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems...). Just as it happens to me, I believe that Lucia can be a great reference for many more people in terms of actions that can be implemented from libraries in relation to the environment; even more so considering the current context of climate change and biodiversity loss with clear evidence worldwide. The visibility of their work is totally relevant for our field. Alina Sarli (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your account is brand new and with a single contribution: did you create it just to sway the vote here? Your entire comment is itself promotional but also nugatory: where are the relevant policies, and where are the sources that establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich I added Lucia's bio as part of Wikiproject Women in Red. The editor(s) involved may be new as Alina Sarli; many thanks Avilich for assume good faith regarding her contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers. In AfD even anonymous users can vote so, why is a problem if she just create it to vote? She is starting to participate and is doing it with her own account and not using her IP address, I think that's on Alina's favor instead of against her as you presented it. Alina is an Argentinean librarian (not Chilean as Abello, to avoid any COI) and I can prove it but respect Alina's desire to not publish yet her own user page and that you assume her good faith but if you need it, please let me know. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sockpuppet. The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC says "as substantiated through reliable sources", and you also missed this unmissable statement in clear bold, "Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow". One of these general notes reads, "Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." So there's actually no good evidenc the subject meets NACADEMC. So again, where are the sources confirming that the subject or the award are notable? Avilich (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the article. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed above. Most are not independent and the rest are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? As I have indicated, it is appropriately sourced. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being at national level is not sufficient. It also has to be "highly prestigious". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the highest honour of the Chilean National Library Association. Why is that not prestigious enough? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you could make this same claim about the highest honour awarded by any organization. Who says it is prestigious? You? Me? That's not good enough. We need a reliable and independent source that states this award is considered prestigious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When all the information is analyzed, the context tells us that Lucía completes the notability. I do not understand the insistence on judging the prestige of an award granted by a national library association, but if the information is useful, The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). On the other hand, the fact that another country has appointed her an honorary member of the library association, as is the case of Peru, reinforces her recognition in Latin America. Virc587 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a national award that is the highest honour in her field of work is "not good enough". That's really surprising. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not without good coverage in sources, per WP:NACADEMIC. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable source confirms that this is "the highest honour in her field of work"? (I fully understand that you may find this ridiculous question, sadly, there are plenty of spammers, hoaxters, and so on who abuse the system, hence we have such requirements). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806), a law is not a reliable source?
You find here, in this debate, more than one user on whom you can identify that we are not spammers, like Hiperterminal (talk), Alina or myself . Still, you question the reliability of our area of work and knowledge. The criteria are understandable in light of what you explain, but the lack of context on your part to apply them in this debate, no. There is a lot of hostility, first in your treatment at the beginning of this debate and the lack of response the first time I consulted you, then in suggesting that we are spammers. It is not healthy to build a collaborative encyclopedia in this situation. Hopefully we can debate and argue from places that do not discredit anyone. Hugs. Virc587 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriately sourced. One of the sources is the awarding institution itself, the other is the government institution she works on. Neither is independent or significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich & Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I mentioned before, but want to write it here too: this biography is part of Wiki Women in Red, The editors involved may be new, thanks for assume good faith regarding their contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers and the idea of sockpuppet is not good faith at all. Maybe they avoid to use their own accounts because are afraid of your aggressive responses, just in my humble opinion. Please consider your votes and attitudes regarding this process. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiperterminal, WIR is a noble project I fully support, but sometimes it produces content that is not eligible for Wikipedia. I also fully support BITE, but I don't think there is any biting here. Logging in and using their proper account is the best practice, if someone is not following best practices, they risk being criticized. Nothing more, nothing less. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Lucía has participated over the years in activities and events held in different countries. She has participated in CERLALC's International Network of Emerging Library Innovators program (https://cerlalc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/INELI_Modelo-ESPACIOS-PARA-LA-CREACI%C3%93N.pdf). CERLALC is the Regional Center for the Promotion of Books in Latin America and the Caribbean and is an intergovernmental organization under the auspices of UNESCO.

In 2020 it was convened by the National Library of Colombia, to participate in the VII National Congress of Public Libraries (https://bibliotecanacional.gov.co/es-co/actividades/noticias/PublishingImages/en-la-rnbp/congreso-bibliotecas-publicas-2020/agenda_vii_congreso.pdf)

The Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Sports of Colombia has also relieved its work together with that of other countries:https://www.culturarecreacionydeporte.gov.co/biblioteca/internacional.html

Just a few weeks ago, IFLA, the International Federation of Library and Library Associations, convened Lucia to a conference on Emerging Leaders: Trends for the Future (Americas), at the IFLA international congress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKQS2zreQG0

Lucía's work was surveyed by the Integrated System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Native Forest Ecosystems (SIMEF), a Chilean national initiative that establishes a coordinated work model between public institutions and involves local communities in the monitoring of native forest ecosystems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKPTivcjoA&t=5s

Lucia's biography can be improved and added content, but would it really be correct to delete it? I am a librarian, and I feel that we lose a lot by turning off a biography that teaches our community about the impact that reading has on the preservation of the native heritage of a country, such as the promotion of Chilean flora through libraries. Are the notability criteria the same for a librarian as for a soccer player, a model, a TV host, a mathematician, a politician or a literary man? Her biography in Catalan and Spanish has not undergone any deletion proposal, I think this should also be taken into account.

National and international awards and recognitions are mentioned, but their prestige is judged without putting into context the diversity of the information provided. That is why I mention that the College of Librarians of Chile, which offers a national award, was created in this country by law (https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). The fact that many times there is no public coverage in the press about this field of knowledge (library science), should not have a negative influence as at the moment. The information is still of interest to a specific community even if it does not have the popularity criteria of other areas, and therefore it is unfair to subject it to the same forms of evaluation without context. Virc587 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are either WP:SPS (youtube) or not independent. See also item 4 of WP:RGW. And please don't vote twice. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but youtube contents are not Self-published sources.
I do not understand the statement "not independent".
I did not know that I could not vote again in relisted, as I said the first time I left a message about this bio, it is the first time I have faced this and I hope to learn. Hugs and I will be attentive to your comments. Virc587 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USESPS#Examples of self-published sources, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my question was not aimed at you to refer me to the examples, but to explain it to me, because the videos that I cited from youtube were not uploaded or produced or organized by the person biographed. Thank you anyway. I continue to learn, although I do not understand the criteria with which you affirm something that it is not. Virc587 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I linked explains all of that, self-published means author = publisher, not subject of the publication = publisher. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well. So if you saw that in the two videos that I refer, the person who was biographed is not the editor, right? Not even his channel. In the first, the world's leading international organization on libraries, is the publisher. In the second, a naturalistic organization is the publisher. Please help me better understand the concept of self-published in these two cases. Thanks in advance. Virc587 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the claim that the award for Outstanding Librarian given by a national library is not prestigious. An independent news source, Soy Chile, lists it in the first sentence of a news article about Abello. Do we need to see the specific descriptive word "prestigious" applied to make it sufficiently prestigious? I also think WP:BITE is happening here: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as 'sockpuppet'". Skvader (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucía_Abello&oldid=1043037019"