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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irene M. Zoppi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. My WP:BEFORE didn't yield significant coverage in independent and reliable sources... primary sources (leanin), employer ([1],[2],[3],[4]), student newspaper (AACC). This Hispanic Lifestyle article appears to mostly copy the Army articles: ([5]). TJMSmith (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete?. Subject appears to be a very worthy person but I can't see notability under Wikipedia policies. Bloated BLP looks as it was written by a PR team. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• DeleteWeak Keep On a first look this appears to be a well-sourced page, but as the nom has shown it lacks SIGCOV in multiple independent RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I have revised my !vote based on improvements made to this page, but still regard it as being of tenuous notability - another weakly sourced "first Puerto Rican to do/be something" Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per all, lacks SIGCOV. Setreis (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNeutral to Weak Keep With disclosure: I did some very minimal cleanup work on wording in parts of this article not too long back and noticed the issues with the sources. As it stands it lacks RS coverage, and my initial search didn't turn up anything additional. Intothatdarkness 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm sure that with a little research RS's could be found. The fact that she is a general makes her notable.Tony the Marine (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? The only essay which supported the assertion that being a general makes one notable, WP:SOLDIER, was just deprecated by the Milhist Project. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Keep. Most of this is badly-sourced fluff but I think as the first Puerto Rican reserve general there is a kernel of notability here, and enough sourcing to support WP:GNG notability for that kernel. I've cut down some of the worst of the bad sourcing but this still needs more careful attention to remove claims that are not in the sources and sources that are not relevant for their claims (I removed some but I'm sure there is more), remove the insignificant trivia from her career record, and sort out which of the claims of civilian positions should be listed as past tense (for which years) and which as present. However none of these issues is a reason for deletion; WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Eppstein, I was thinking maybe a redirect to Puerto Rican women in the military could be useful to readers if there isn't SIGCOV. I'm surprised that there isn't more out there on her. I came across coverage of other women generals in the Army Reserve (i.e. [6]) but nothing like that on Zoppi. TJMSmith (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just corrected a line in the lede. It was misquoting a source. And as far as RS I did the usual sweep using the google links provided. There's some stuff related to her graduate work, but sadly I didn't find much in the way of RS. Intothatdarkness 20:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sauret piece (we use the one directly published by the Army, but there are several other versions in other reliable publications) and the congratulations from the Puerto Rican government, are both in-depth, reliable, and independent enough to count. The Hispanic Lifestyle piece is in-depth and independent but more dubious in its reliability; it reads more like publicity than journalism to me. The 2019 and 2020 sources are more local and less in-depth about Zoppi, so they don't count for as much, but they at least look reliable and broaden the coverage of her. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS The new El Tiempo Latino source found by TJMSmith also looks in-depth, reliable, and independent. And since it's from 2014, it isn't just a copy of the 2017 first-Puerto-Rican-general announcements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The page could use a few more corrections. Under the section "Operation Desert Storm", the second paragraph misattributes a series of leadership positions as having been during her active military service when all of those positions happened later during her rising career in the reserves. I'd recommend combining the "Operation Desert Storm" section and the "Army reserve" section into one section titled "Military service", and let it run chronologically to fix that. As a side note, this article also refers to the National Intelligence University as being under the National Security Agency, but that is incorrect. The NIU started as the Defense Intelligence School under the Defense Intelligence Agency, then it became the Defense Intelligence College, and then the National Intelligence University, but it has never been under the NSA. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The corrected version of the NIU story appears to be that the NIU operates an educational facility ("academic center") within the NSA, and that Zoppi directs or has directed that center. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for making the corrections. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Eppstein made many improvements. I also found and incorporated into the article 4 sources: [7][8][9][10]. IMHO, these plus the release ([11]) from the PR Govt demonstrates significant and sustained coverage. Some of the sources predate her latest 2017 promotion. Pinging @Intothatdarkness:@Xxanthippe:@Setreis:@Mztourist: so you can reconsider your vote based on the newly uncovered sources. I'm glad to support keeping this article. TJMSmith (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The most I would do is switch to Neutral or perhaps Weak Keep on the article. It still needs work, although it's good to see what @David Eppstein: and @TJMSmith: have done so far. I'm in the middle of cleaning up another article like this that was kept and then abandoned. Lots of heavy lifting that should have been done (IMO) when the article was created. Intothatdarkness 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - She is notable and here her some references to back up that claim - Dr. Irene M. Zoppi Rodriguez Professor at Strayer University, Irene M. Zoppi Rodríguez Brigadier General, Deputy Commanding General - Support, 200th Military Police Command, Latina of Influence, AACC Board of Trustees gets 1st Hispanic member, Women's rights, Social Fairness for equal opportunities, Women's Activism, 17th Annual National Latina Symposium and Virtual Awards Presentation, Arnold Campus Aerial Brig. Gen. Irene M. Zoppi Rodriguez, Ph.D., U.S. Army Reserves, Zoppi Assigned to U.S. Army South and so on. Once again this article defiantly deserves to be Kept. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony the Marine: Your comment demonstrates an indiscriminate attitude towards sourcing that is in large part the cause of why this article is currently at AfD. For instance, your Women's Activism NYC link is in many places a word-for-word copy of text from the Wikipedia article as it existed at the date of publication of the link. Per WP:CIRCULAR, it cannot be used as a source. You also list not one but two linkedin links, and we should not be using that as a source. We need to be much more careful about making sure our sources are reliable, that they are in-depth, and that they actually support the claims they are used here to support. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has some reliable sources and plenty of other links which prove she is indeed, well known. Antonio Mr. Cool Martin (the talk page) 06:11, 17 March, 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Article has several reliable sources Hispanic Lifestyle, El Nuevo Dia, KSL.com, Campus Current. Other factors influenced me (1) the army article meets the standard of a reliable source since those articles published are subject to editorial review and written by journalists that are not directly tied to the subject matter, (2) the appointment is covered in the congressional record (primary source) and the army article(s) are secondary sources based on that material, (3) the lack of wide coverage could be part of a systemic bias against Latinas, women or both. --Trödel 20:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sourcing is there, the article passes GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the improvements made. Also WP needs more articles about women in general and women generals ;-) - wolf 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already put down my keep vote, but I just want to say that articles' notability is determined primarily by the merit of their sourcing, not whether or not the subject is a non-Anglo Saxon woman. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • pfft! Now you tell me. What am I gonna do about those completely unsourced articles about non-Anglo Saxon women I've created? - wolf 22:04, 19 March 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.