Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beya Alcaraz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beya Alcaraz

[edit]

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

Beya Alcaraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alcaraz was appointed and resigned in about a week. Although there has been a flurry of attention in the local media, she doesn't pass either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BLP1E. I have added a short section to the article on Daniel Lurie that should be adequate coverage Lexiconaut (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to make a call on WP:SUSTAINED as she only resigned last week. Plus she meets criteria for WP:POLITICIAN so that policy becomes superfluous. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While her tenure was extremely brief, Alcaraz was an actual member of the SFBOS, and should have an article like all the others. She was the first person of Filipino descent to serve on the BOS, which is significant. I don't believe that simply listing her as a "controversy" on Lurie's article does justice. Her appointment and subsequent resignation have now made national news as well (NYT). Funcrunch (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe in keeping because on a list of supervisors she would be a mystery if she was in red or black and people would wonder why. They could google her name and see she served a week but why not have that information here? Theissuesandthedebates (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is likely the first major scandal of Lurie's administration and there has been extensive press coverage surrounding it. When you have the editors-in-chiefs of flagship local papers penning acerbic op-eds there shouldn't even be a question of notability. And as Funcrunch noted, this became a national story. She does meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN because she was actually sworn into that office, and WP:BLP1E states that EACH of the three criteria needs to be met. The event that she is associated with is significant and she was a major figure - if not the major figure - in that event. So neither of those, narrowly read, can be grounds for the removal of the article.
But forget the bureaucracy for a moment. Right now, if you go to the COB's office and you ask for a roll of SF supervisors, her name is going to appear on that list into perpetuity. She's probably got an engraved placard sitting somewhere in the board chambers. If someone wants to figure out what happened to that official, this page is going to be an important resource. That alone warrants her inclusion in my book. And who knows, she might even make another bid at some point. Ice Vest (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another important factor to consider: she is possibly the shortest serving supervisor in San Francisco's history! Ice Vest (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E with mostly negative content outside of the run-of-the-mill coverage; at this point she's notable entirely for her appointment having been a bad decision. Coverage of her appointment, before the purchaser of her business came forward, was overwhelmingly about how unknown she was, including to her constituents. The desire for complete coverage of the Board of Supervisors doesn't outweigh the BLP considerations. Should be deleted and replaced with a redirect; it's a pity there isn't a District 4 article to serve as the target, so I suppose the relevant subsection of the Lurie article would be the best choice. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POLITICIAN states we presume notability with elected officials and deletion precedent suggests that by custom, legislators of intl. recognized cities receive pages. Furthermore, it's not appropriate that the first Fillipina supervisor in the city's history exists only as a footnote on Lurie's record. Negativity of coverage does not affect WP:BLP1E compliance, see WP:What BLP1E is not. Ice Vest (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, for example, we see coverage of her in the context of her *attaining political office,* not in the context of her being fired. So the BLP1E screen doesn't pass muster. The "one event" is her firing, but she also generated coverage of that independently of that as an appointed legislator, with the swearing in and so on. Ice Vest (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E strictly does not apply here since there are two events to speak of (her appoint and her dismissal). Even if you conceptualize the "one event" as her membership/term on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it doesn't meet the 3rd prong of BLP1E "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event is significant - dismissing a politician is very commonly significant, especially when it achieves press coverage like this, and her role is both documented and substantial. As noted above, WP:What BLP1E is not applies here. Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which means that she passes WP:NPOLITICIAN under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage".Katzrockso (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She represented 80,000 people in an official capacity. She is notable for her appointment and abrupt resignation in scandal, two distinct events, therefore BLP1E does not apply. Deathying (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG. Size of jurisdiction does not matter for NPOL. However, I do not think BLP1E fits in this situation. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local politicians are neither notable nor insignificant. While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Chico does note that NPOL #2 is not an inherent way for any big city politician to have an article. NPOL #2 states that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are presumed notable. In a note, significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. She has not been the subject of significant profiles from multiple journalists let alone with any kind of sustained coverage. This article has fallen into the trap of creating an article on a news story covered in a bunch of local newspapers. I also have to disagree with the assertions that the single event criteria or WP:BLP1E would not apply here. 1) There is no consensus that appointments to local governments are notable. Thus it would not be notable that she was both appointed and quickly resigned. 2) Almost any event can be broken down into multiple little things. This would make any officeholder who does not lose an election or retire at the end of a term notable which flies in the face of numerous policies. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither WP:POLOUTCOMES nor a specific AfD are binding on the decision here. Your comment here demands "significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists", but this is not the requirement given by the WP:GNG for this subject to be notable. The WP:GNG states "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but does not require "news feature articles" (which I am taking to understand as a specific profile?). Editors certainly disagree about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV, but commonly WP:100WORDS about a subject is taken as one good indicator, and there are plenty more than 100 words written across many sources here.
    Your argument about BLP1E is just as confused: nobody here is arguing that there is any sort of inherent notability to local government or that Beya Alcaraz is notable in virtue of having been appointed. The point is that her appointment and subsequent dismissal have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is enough for a WP:GNG pass. I think you may be confusing the counterargument that the story is significant with the point that it is notable. Moreover, a successful WP:BLP1E argument requires that all 3 prongs be met (see WP:What BLP1E is not), a requirement that is not met here. Above I argued that even if we accept that her tenancy as a San Francisco city council member can be understood as a single event (dubious), prong #3 is not satisfied. But I would also like to challenge prong #2: that she will remain a low-profile individual. She engaged in all the hallmarks of being a high-profile individual: seeking media attention, giving press conferences [1], giving interviews, etc. Indeed, becoming a politician (even one appointed) in a city as large as San Francisco almost inherently rebukes the idea that one can remain a low-profile individual. She had even given interviews before this whole political debacle! [2]. So here is another example of significant coverage for a different event (her pet store ownership) that once again refutes the third prong of BLP1E. Katzrockso (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand how the phrase "While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors," could be interpreted as me thinking it is binding nor how directly quoting NPOL #2 to prove she fails to meet a subject specific guideline is irrelevant to the AfD. There is also no reason to think from what I have written that I consider a specific AfD binding either. While I disagree with you about GNG being met, be reassured if my views are as "confused" as you claim, then the experienced closers here will simply disregard them. --Mpen320 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned POLOUTCOMES and another AfD, which I noted neither have any PAG bearing on the notability of this particular individual. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I don't know why you would bring them up unless you thought that they were relevant to the notability of the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think she is/was irrelevant as far as San Francisco politics go. If anything her appointment to SFBOS highlights the political quid pro quo system operating in the shadows. She has zero qualifications, credentials or experience. Her "career" as a pet shop owner was created by her father — not as a result of her business acumen. I think her 7 day supe job can go into a section on Daniel Lurie's page under blunders/embarrassments. Either way, the current state of Alcazar's page is white-washed of all the illegal activity she was engaged in (i.e. paying workers under the table and cheating on her taxes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out double !vote.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beya_Alcaraz&oldid=1324457142"