Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Barrett

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. AfD was withdrawn, and a clear consensus to keep based on WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Barrett[edit]

[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)

Declined PROD. Person does not meet WP:GNG as their is a lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject significantly covering her biography. No comment on whether or not her fund is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a quick response, to quote my WP:ES opposing the PROD: Person is highlighted as "Five Fascinating Philanthropists" by Barron's. That's a direct claim. President and founder of an organization that has ref to support its own potential notability is a direct claim, though not as strong. So *at least* either the person or org merit an article, and she seems stronger. That Barron's link has already been in the article, no idea why Muboshgu isn't accepting it as a GNG ref. DMacks (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that one article in Barron's can contribute to GNG (though you didn't provide the url so I can't see how in-depth it goes), but one article alone does not establish it. This source doesn't mention the subject of the article. Nor does this. This one and this one are not independent of the subject. My WP:BEFORE found nothing else. So where's the significant coverage in multiple independent sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a founder/major player in an organization can help support notability even if not itself and alone sufficient depending on the organization. Alternately, a not-quite-notable person with that role would generally be merged with the organization's article (the parent from which notability was not inherited). So please read carefully my comment about how "person and organiztation" at least seem to merit an article for one of them and why there is a key ref for the organizgation that doesn't specifically mention the person. DMacks (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to your deletion-nomination, I had added a ref about an award she had won. While I did not at the time emphasize the award (I instead was using it as a ref for some bio details), it would seem that's another GNG ref you might have overlooked. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. See:
- this 1975 profile in the Boston Globe ("Boss woman—with few rules")
- a few paragraphs in this 1973 article, also in the Globe ("A woman's place can be in business")
- several paragraphs of biographical information in this 1998 profile of her husband in a widely syndicated piece from the Globe ("Deconstructing Bob Vila")
- this article about her and her fund in the Palm Beach Daily News (Fund aims 'to connect audiences to action')
pburka (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC per DMacks and Pburka. Sal2100 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw based on WP:HEY and WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2023 (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.