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. Passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Leticia Quezada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a person notable only as a trustee on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself; a school board member might be includable if she could be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG (or if she went on to hold a more notable office than the school board itself), but does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing. But of the five footnotes here, there are really only two distinct citations, with the other three being mere reduplications of one of those two -- and two references is not enough to get a person over GNG if they haven't cleanly passed an SNG. (And even if this were to be kept on the basis of significantly improved referenceability, it still has campaign brochure overtones that would have to be significantly rewritten for WP:NPOV compliance.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - almost no school board members are notable, and none are automatically notable; however, as with Lewis Powell, board membership on a large or well-known school board confronting serious controversies can get national attention. This subject appears to pass the POLITICIAN test. In this case, she was the board member of a gigantically huge district that is the 2nd largest in the United States, and she got into media spotlight often. The article needs some copy editing and more reliable sources, but it's not that bad. Bearian ( talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I see Gnews results for a different Leticia Quezada, a Mexican assemblyperson? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Delete as it's the only first Hispanic person for that particular group, simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete As failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG AusLondonder ( talk) 09:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. School board members are not inherently notable, but they are not inherently non-notable either, especially for school districts as large as LAUSD, with bigger numbers of students than the total population of many countries. And SwisterTwister's claim that this is too low-level an ethnic first, and therefore that she is non-notable, is a non-sequiter: she doesn't have to be notable for that one thing to be notable. I just added two recent book sources to the two in-depth major newspaper articles that were already used as sources. I think the fact that she is still being cited as an example nearly 20 years after she left office is a clear indication of WP:GNG notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I expanded the article based on even more sources. Don't look to the new "Later work" for much additional notability (the positions listed there are much less in the spotlight than her work at LAUSD, and her losing run for congress wouldn't change the outcome for WP:NPOL) but I think it's an important chapter in her life that should be mentioned. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Another update: the New York Times story that I just added provides significant and non-local contemporary coverage. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as meeting WP:GNG and thanks to the edits made by David Eppstein. Enos733 ( talk) 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I expect that I would recommend deleting 99.9% of articles about school board members. This is the exception to my own personal rule. The LAUSD has nearly 700,000 students and an annual budget of about $6 billion. Quezada did not just serve as a "trustee", but as president of that massive district, second largest in the United States. The references now in the article show notability, thanks to David Eppstein. The "campaign brochure" concern seems misplaced, since her last run for public office was 24 years ago, long before Wikipedia began. A Google Books search finds that at least 15 books devote significant coverage to her. That is exceptionally rare for school board trustees. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Unambiguously passes both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (#2), per David Eppstein's sources: in-depth coverage, over a significant period of time, in major local and national news media as well as reliable history books. FourViolas ( talk) 04:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep She clearly meets the General Notability Guideline. BoyRD ( talk) 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece. Carrite ( talk) 16:52, 11 August 2016 (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.