Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Duarte

Nancy Duarte

Nancy Duarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not appear to be notable.

• Sup baby, you suck at Google Duarte Inc.'s, Nancy Duarte to Serve on TED Fellows Program Selection Committee l2internet, lewlz~ Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Duarte Design. The company is (potentially) notable for its work on An Inconvenient Truth (although I note that there are currently no references in that article); there's no evidence that its founder is independently notable. Tevildo (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Tevildo's comments. andy (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet general
  Duarte Design is notable, in that it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. They have not had significant coverage. Newspaper coverage of "press releases" needs to be distinguished from other types of coverage. --75.161.108.5 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • sup hun. Nancy mentioned in
    Business Week[4], and the Entrepreneur[5]. what was that Lassie? yes, Lassie, the trolls failed to research before vetoing. internet 101 bois! le sigh -_- Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I think there's enough for a keep here. Author of slide:ology, CEO of
  Duarte Design. Clearly she is verifiable, and her credentials in my opinion make her notable -- Samir 05:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I'm not changing my opinion - this article and
  Duarte Design should be merged and kept. Two points, though. (a) The references need to go into the article(s), not just this AfD. (b) The references (possibly with the exception of the El Pais article) establish the notability of the company, not of its founder. I still don't think they're _independently_ notable, so as to deserve two articles. Tevildo (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no evidence of notability added to article during this very long discussion. Laudak (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2009 (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.