Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Res

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 no consensus. The "delete" opinions do not address the sources in any detail. Sandstein 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Res

Barbara Res (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No significant independent coverage in secondary sources, does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the organization of the article may have obscured the amount of coverage that may be available. I have reorganized and created sections, and added a few sources with additional information, and can continue later. Beccaynr (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that the additional sources are more of the same when it comes to significant independent coverage of Res. The book reviews make a case for the notability of Res's book about Trump, but I'm not seeing enough independent biographical coverage to justify a separate article about her. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there is

WP:LOWPROFILE and I am still working on that section. I also haven't looked into her first book much yet, which may provide additional independent biographical coverage, because it is a memoir. Also, there is an additional voice for keep on the article's talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I made some recent additions of sources to the article describing Res' recent book, and I think this article may also fit

WP:ANYBIO, specifically "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field," not only for the recent book, but also for the sustained coverage of Res over time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

At this point, I think this article clears

WP:INTERVIEW, there are serveral sources that take note of some of Res' interviews, (i.e. Newsweek, The Independent, and HuffPost) and perhaps can be considered "evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time." Beccaynr (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Notability also seems supported by the

WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete — Just as Rosguill already stated, I too cannot see in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources pertaining to the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To further address the nom's concerns about independent biographical coverage, I have added a reference from Business Insider and information from existing sources, and rearranged the text in the Career section of the article. I also have added a profile from People magazine in the Advocacy section, and a HuffPost report in the Works section, both of which also support
  WP:BASIC also supports notability, the basic criteria states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and the coverage of Res has been extensive and ongoing in a wide variety of independent and reliable sources, including secondary sources described above in my previous comment at 23:44, 19 December 2020. Beccaynr (talk) 02:06, 4 January 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.