Myla Vicenti Carpio: Onel 5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Onel 5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and New Mexico .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:TOOSOON .  Citation record [55] is on a good trajectory but not yet strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 .  She has one book, for which I found five published reviews ( [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] ); if we had that many reviews for two authored books I'd think this a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR , but one book isn't enough.  (The book could be notable itself, though.)  The "awards and achievements" listed in the article are definitely not enough for notability through that, let alone the big unsourced pile of committee service assignments.  And we have no in-depth sourcing about her independent of her and her employer that could be used to pass WP:GNG .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirecting to the new article on her book would also be ok.  As I said above, I think the book may pass WP:GNG , but if all of our in-depth sourcing related to Carpio is for that one book, then she doesn't pass WP:BIO1E and a redirect is a good choice.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: one of her books, Indigenous Albuquerque now has an article.  Keep.  She is listed on the Arizona Board of Regents website [61] , as well as being the author of a notable book.  Just a generally relevant career per her article.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found one more scholarly review for Indigenous Albuquerque here BhamBoi ( talk ) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being listed as a member of the faculty of a university is in no way a pass of any notability criterion.  It does not help to pass WP:PROF , because it is true of all university faculty rather than being one of the achievements that we use to distinguish the notable ones from the rest.  And it does not help to pass WP:GNG , because it is neither in-depth coverage nor independent.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep due to pass of WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, author of a well known piece of work, her book Indigenous Albuquerque .  How well known it is is up for debate, but with many academic sources reviewing it (as per my searches on Wikipedia Library), it's well known enough for me to ! vote keep, while still weak due to my perception that not everyone will support my logic, despite the criterion clearly allowing it for one work, I know some people prefer there to be two, and some prefer the book to be very well known, and I respect those preferences, even though I don't agree with them.  CT55555 ( talk ) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi CT55555!   The key is the work.   Yes, if she had written Gone With the Wind , that is both significant and well-known.   As would be any Pulitzer or Nobel prize winning work.   The book, while it did receive some press is neither significant, nor well-known.   I think that's the main difference for authors with only one notable work.  Onel 5969 TT me 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a small point of clarification, the criterion says "significant or well-known" not "significant and well-known".  I do see others interpreting the guidance as having a higher bar than how I see it, but I think my interpretation of it is valid and reasonable.  My assessment that it is "well-known" is about the level of academic interest rather than media reporting.  I didn't see much news about it.  CT55555 ( talk ) 22:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Point taken about the and vs. or.   And I would say that the book is rarely cited, so academic interest is low, although it has a few reviews.   As always, though, a pleasure discussing stuff with you.  Onel 5969 TT me 01:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The very large amount of scholoraly reviews indicates to me that this is a ‘significant’ work: on top of the ones already cited in the article, I found four others in academic journals.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 20:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NAUTHOR.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  09:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Author, public speaker, educator, well-cited and influential in the field of American Indian studies .  Yuchitown ( talk ) 02:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Keep Notable author and academic. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 17:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect .  Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon and WP:Author .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 11:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .  Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR .  The multiple independent book reviews in several journals that are cited in the wiki article on her book Indigenous Albuquerque are enough evidence to show the subject meets that notability indication in the NAUTHOR policy.  "Well-known" is a subjective measure, and so we generally interpret that policy at AFD to mean that it if we have multiple independent publications in RS reviewing a work than it is "well-known" and the author is notable.  4meter4 ( talk ) 03:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, American Indian studies is a smaller field.  The general public isn't aware of most of what is going on in  Native American communities.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 15:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Generally, if a person is known for only one book, unless the book is very significant, we do an article on the book rather than the person. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 23:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Since the article was improved we've had 6 keep arguments and one delete.  I'm surprised this was relisted.  CT55555 ( talk ) 14:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SOCKSTRIKE — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - due to notable works Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) ( talk ) 19:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Indigenous Albuquerque unless there's a second work with reviews or SIGCOV directly about her.  Jahaza ( talk ) 23:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep author of a notable book and recipient of university-wide awards.  Jaireeodell ( talk ) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a brief summary (~one paragraph) of the article to a new " About the author " section on Indigenous Albuquerque .  Fails GNG, BIO and BLP, but there is a nice home for a concise summary of the information at the target.  Brief sourced information will be preserved and the target article will be improved with an About the author section.  There are not sources to support a BLP or pass GNG or NAUTHOR.  NAUTHOR states " significant or well-known work or collective body of work"; Indigenous Albuquerque however notable, is not a well known work and there is no RS showing it has had a significant impact on the subjects field.  // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If someone presents multiple RS showing that this indivdual's work has had a SIGNIFICANT impact on their field, I will glady change my ! vote based on NAUTHOR#3.  I've created Catherine Allgor and Edith B. Gelles as well as numerous book articles User:TimothyBlue#New Articles Created , so I've thought about the author article vs work article (or both) issue a bit.  My opinion, based on BLP and NAUTHOR and related guidelines, is that a BLP should only be created when the subject is notable separately from their book (such as through NACADEMIC) or if the subjects body of work is best covered in a single article rather than multiple articles (which is the case the previously mentioned) (please no revenge AfDs).  // Timothy :: talk 05:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable in her field of Native American Studies.  The Eloquent Peasant ( talk ) 23:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She provided her expertise in her field to Oxford Bibliographies Online , a British online encyclopedia maintained by the Oxford University Press , the largest university press in the world.  It's a site that students go to when searching an annotated bibliography on a subject.  I think this makes her notable.  The Eloquent Peasant ( talk ) 04:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one becomes notable just for having written something.  Coauthoring an annotated bibliography is a good thing for an academic to do, but it is unremarkable.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selectively merge to Indigenous Albuquerque for the reasons that Timothy suggested.  A single book is very seldom a "body of work" that implies we should cover in depth the whole arc of a person's career.  In general and on balance, when there's only one book, it makes more sense to have an article on that book.  We can always revisit the question if the situation changes.  Currently, the article is full of CV/LinkedIn-style writing that seems to be trying hard to "sell" the subject without having any sense of what actually makes a scholar stand out (hint: being invited to be a panelist isn't it).  This does not convey why Vicenti Carpio's work is interesting or why anyone should care.  It serves no one and merely makes the corpus of writing on Native American studies marginally more tedious on average.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and selective merge to Indigenous Albuquerque : per WP:TOOSOON .  Vicenti Carpio appears to not meet WP:GNG , WP:AUTHOR , or WP:PROF .  She can be covered in a section of her notable work, Indigenous Albuquerque .  A standalone article can be restored in the future should there be further sigcov or another notable work.  TJMSmith ( talk ) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge