Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne Frias

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. ✗plicit 05:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Frias

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, no reliable sources substantiate the article's principal assertions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find news and writing about the organization she founded, the office she holds, her role in March For Our Lives. She features in many pieces of writing about young activists, I've added some in. I think she clearly meets notability criteria now. CT55555 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still unconvinced. She is in a few lists, but most of those are WP:RISING kind of lists. In the end, notability is about impact. Is it likely that she will, at some point of her career, be notable? Absolutely. The work she does looks really cool. Is she notable right here, right now, by the standards as they are applied? No.

Thanks for adding the additional refs, but they do not substantiate notability in my view. Out of the seven sources, three are WP:RISING kind of 'up and coming' lists. There's a NYT article, but that is at best collaterally about her. There are two profiles – 'speaker details' tend to be written by the speaker and so do not constitute independent coverage. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the WP:RISING and I find it a very agreeable essay. I think we interpret it differently. As I see it, it's based on how to apply WP:CRYSTAL guidance, with the key thing here being not to add unverifiable future predictions of notability. That is not what has happened in this article. This article cites published sources, the argument that she is notable does not rely on crystal balls, predictions or claims that she will be notable in the future. She is notable today.

You say that the sources in the article do not substantiate notability, which is difficult to understand. To keep it simple, R. Sarah has written a book chapter about her, Ms. (magazine) has written half a page about her, Mission has written an article about her, Vice has written half a page about her, The New York Times has mentioned her and hosted an event where she's a speaker. This all meets WP:GNG plain and simply, it meets WP:BIO plain and simply. I don't know what more anyone could need. CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, i.e. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - while these sources are not all in-depth, they do not seem trivial due to the context of the coverage: Election Day rally in Union Square hopes to inspire city’s youngest voters (AMNY, Nov. 2018, description of her organizing efforts and quote, in the context of the voter turnout initiative by Future Coalition: "said Daphne Frias, 20-year-old college student and Future Coalition’s lead organizer in New York"), Thousands of students are expected to walk out of classes today to go to the polls (CNBC, Nov. 2018, "Daphne Frias, a 20-year-old SUNY student and organizer of the New York City Walkout to Vote, tells CNBC..."), This Is What It Looks Like When Teens Fight Climate Change (ELLE, Jul. 2019, featured in a picture with a caption, e.g. "...21-year-old activist and newly-appointed elected official in her New York community, led a breakout session..." but not by an independent author), Six degrees of coronavirus? In NYC area, cases get personal (NBC News Mar. 2020, 6 grafs about her), Gen Z was fed up with the status quo. Coronavirus could affirm their beliefs. (WaPo, Apr. 2020, 7 grafs about her), Passion, Power, and Honor: 9 Young Latinx Activists Who Are Changing the World (Pop Sugar, Sept. 2020, 2 grafs), Is 'Latinx' The Future Of Latino Identity? (NPR, Oct. 2020, interviewed as an activist), Young Women Are Leading Climate Protests. Guess Who Runs Global Talks? (NYT, Nov. 2021, brief mention and quote at the end of the article, in the context of her participation in a protest), Whose Voices Are (and Aren’t) Being Heard at COP26? (Yes, Nov. 2021, 2 grafs about her). She is also profiled in this 2021 book: Girl Warriors: How 25 Young Activists Are Saving the Earth (several pages) and interviewed in this 2020 book: Youth to Power: Your Voice and How to Use It. The article can be expanded with the depth of coverage available from the combination of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC) - wikilink for the Future Coalition added to comment. Beccaynr (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to reflect depth of AMNY source. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to reflect lack of independence in ELLE source. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article to help demonstrate the depth available from a combination of sources, and I also think a close review of the sources raises a few concerns about independence and quality. For example, Mission does not appear to have editorial standards nor to include a date on its article. The three grafs from Ms. are produced by the bylined organization, similar to the caption in ELLE, although in ELLE, the author is the organization that sponsored the covered event. There is some reliance on quotes from her in sources such as Vice in its two grafs of coverage, but from my view, it is still attention in the sense that she has been found "worthy of notice", as well as the additional independent context that supports notability. For most of the New York Times sources, she was part of an NYT-sponsored speaker initiative, and the primary sources do not contribute to notability. However, I think there is overall enough coverage in independent and reliable sources over time that provides sufficient depth to support a stand-alone article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets the BASIC coverage, and sufficient depth from the expansion of the article, Sadads (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (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.