Talk:Hannah Cairo

AfD Conclusion

Note that the AfD concluded with Draftify, but two additional reliable sources were added very late (bringing up to four) because they were published very late. I think that if those two sources had been around for most of the AfD, the result might have been different; but given that the article is in draft space now, it's probably best to keep it there until the math article is peer reviewed and accepted since this might result in enough additional press stories to make it a no-brainer for notability (under the general notability guidelines not WP:PROF). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

El Economista cite

There's another citation from July 29 on El Economista (Spain), but since it's unsigned and attributes its reporting to El Paìs I didn't add it. One can note that there's now 3 papers of record, 5 sources with English Wikipedia entries (and 2 more in other languages including this one), and one full month from the first to the last source. That's usually the level of broad and sustained coverage that counts as notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Transgender status

The source , currently in the article's references, pretty unambiguously describes her as being transgender. (One of the questions literally says You’ve mentioned to me that you’re transgender. How has that affected your journey?.

However, temporary accounts (most recently @~2026-18392-94:) are removing the sentence under a claim that it doesn't say such a thing. I could see an argument for not mentioning it because of DUE but not because of a claim that the source, which discusses it, doesn't discuss it.

@DanielRigal: I also see you've re-added it so pinging you as well. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the source is clear, and while a discussion about WP:DUE may be in order, it's certainly disingenuous to claim the source doesn't support the statement. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Also I think queer erasure may be more relevant than WP:DUE here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, my current position is that a single sentence is definitely due weight, but that a debate on such would be plausible while the objection I saw was less so. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a question over the best place to locate it in the article. I don't think there is any question at all that it belongs in the article somewhere. Continued removal is vandalism and we can just issue warning templates until the vandal gets the message. DanielRigal (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Or, if it gets worse, semiprotect the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Typo?

Today I find:

QUOTE

Her work involved using fractals and other tools and originally resulted in a more complex counterexample before finding a simpler example after reformulating the problem in frequency space.

UNQUOTE

Should "a simpler example" be changed to "a simpler counterexample"? There's a counterexample, and it's more complex than the next finding, and so there's an expectation that the next found thing would be another "counterexample" (not another "example") that is simpler than the previous one.~2026-38553-14 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson