Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Marie Rivera

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Marie Rivera

[edit]
Alexis Marie Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as a case manager at a local non-profit agency. While Wikipedia doesn't inherently preclude people of primarily "local to a single area" notability from getting articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, that's not what the sourcing here is doing -- of the six references here, four are primary sources (the self-published webpages of organizations she was directly involved with, and/or YouTube videos) and the other two are blogs. (And of the two blog sources, The Huffington Post is widely read enough that it would be an acceptable source if the rest of the referencing around it were more solid -- but it's not a source that can carry GNG all by itself if it's the best thing you can find.) She may have done interesting work and she was probably an awesome person, but unfortunately there's just nowhere near enough legitimate sourcing here to hang an encyclopedia article on. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the wn.com citation doesn't help bolster a notability claim either — it's not an originator of content, but a news aggregator that merely collects headlines from other news services — the reason it's "similar" to the Huffington Post article is because it is the Huffington Post article. Nor does it matter whether an organization existed before she was involved with it or not — if she was involved with it at all, then it is a primary source, because her direct involvement in the organization makes it not fully independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, in regard to other organizations that reference Alexis Rivera: GLAAD Article Published after shortly after her death [1]. Friends Research Institute in Los Angeles runs a program named after Alexis Rivera [2]. Techgirlwonder (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously I'm the primary author so my vote is biased. Responding to TopCipher, I can tell you that Trans Pride is Los Angeles local transgender pride celebration [3], and gives an award every year recognizing a local transgender advocate. Since Alexis death in 2012, the award has been titled the Alexis Rivera Trailblazer Award in honor of Alexis work. Further references can be found here: [4], [5], [6].
    Query: Part of what makes Alexis Rivera important is she was an advocate 15 years ago, at a time when the transgender community was largely invisible to mainstream society. As a result, there is very little documented media from that time period (and what there is did not make it to the internet). Is there a recommended method for sourcing articles about communities are rarely written about in major media sources? I am committed to improving this article as the primary author based on the feedback here. Techgirlwonder (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be accessible on the internet — if you can find print-only media coverage in an archive or a news retrieval database, you can use that for referencing. But regardless of whether it's web-accessible or to paper-only content, the referencing does still have to be to reliable sources. We do not have any "alternate path to sourceability" rules that exempt members of underrepresented groups from having to be reliably sourced, or that allow them to rest on social networking posts, or blogs, or primary sources, or YouTube videos, or other types of sourcing that would not ordinarily be good enough, instead — as unfortunate as it may be that transgender people historically didn't get as much coverage in the media as they might have deserved, it's not Wikipedia's role to rectify that visibility gap if the required quality of sourcing doesn't exist and we have to rely on substandard sourcing instead. The fact that there was less reliable source coverage than there maybe should have been in principle does not exempt a person from the reliable sourcing requirement — if the depth of reliable source coverage just wasn't there to meet GNG on the same quality of sources that anybody else would have to show, then there simply isn't an alternate path to sourcing a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional secondary sources -- Bay Area Reporter [7][8], Bilerico project [9][10], OnTop magazine [11]Techgirlwonder (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Techgirlwonder you should add these additional references to the article. I hope they're considered strong enough, but I'm not an expert by any stretch of imagination. Most importantly, two things. First, this is not personal, Wikipedia kind of has a mind of its own in attempt to be reliable and verifiable. And second, know that in the worst case if the article is still deleted, you can still improve it and try again. Wikipedia has a Draft namespace which is meant for that kind of work. Milimetric (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the articles from the Bay Area Reporter, which is by Wikipedia's own definition "one of the largest circulation LGBT newspapers by circulation in the United States and the country's oldest continuously published newspaper of its kind"[12] -- the Transgender Law Center source which was the main previous source has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgirlwonder (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
found a couple more sources. MassiveEartha (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please Select Your Gender: From the Invention of Hysteria to the Democratizing of Transgenderism by Patricia Gherovici. Routledge 2011 [13]
GLAAD Mourns Transgender Advocate and HIV/AIDS Activist Alexis Rivera 2012 [14]

  • Note from original Author: I have now removed 3 of the 4 primary sources in the original article and replaced them with secondary sources. The remaining primary source is the Quest pagaent, and it simply to verify that Alexis was the original winner of the Quest pagaent. It seems to me that a contest reporting on who won in a given year falls under the category of "a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I also added a sentence about the Trailblazer award, using the San Diego piece as well as an announcement form the Transgender Law Center. While Alexis is worked for the transgender law center while she was alive, this article simply reporting the fact that another person has received this award, so I think it's hard to say the source is primary. I do also know this fact was reporting in Girl Talk magazine at the time, but it is an out of print publication and as far as I can tell it is not archived anywhere. I understanding sourcing is not perfect but I sincerely hope this article will be not be deleted and instead can continue to be improved over time.Techgirlwonder (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source clean-up -- mention of commemorative mural is now from SF Bay Guardian, which although now online only, published a print edition as of 2012 Techgirlwonder (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Techgirlwonder's query, and the sources added to the article since its creation, there's a strong argument to be made to keep, as it contributes to an emerging body of information about transgender activism and the history of public policy in relation to the trans community, particularly in California. The subject's seminal role in developing best practices to serve transgender youth makes them notable. The article could be improved with the addition of an infobox and further references. Glowimperial (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Too local" is not a GNG guideline if sourcing exists, which at this point it does. Also, sourcing is from three different cities and a national blog, so I don't see how it is local at all.Techgirlwonder (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't overplay the strength of sources here. They are scant and local. The nomination would be much stronger if there was discussion of her in a couple of very high quality sources (say NYT, Time, or the like), any major source outside the US (right now there are none cited), etc. Right now the article barely squeaks by, and some may validly judge it doesn't. Not a slam dunk.
There are "Alexis Marie Rivera" none (sic, search link works) and none at the NYT; none and none at Time. none and none of none of these at the LA Times are about her. nothing at even the san francisco chonicle, either. I ~voted keep, but just barely. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overplaying the sources was not my intent in that comment, only to point out that "too local" is not a GNG guideline, and that the sources, while some are local, are local to different cities, along with at least a few pieces which are not local. As it is, there are now additional sources since that commentary. While they are not in the publications listed, I would point out all of those publications covered transgender issues only sporadically in the time Alexis was alive.Techgirlwonder (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:31, 4 May 2017 (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/Alexis_Marie_Rivera&oldid=1137552916"