Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Hamburger


 * 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. North America1000 06:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne Hamburger

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject fail GNG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources.  Cassiopeia  talk  05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNY22 (talk • contribs) 17:54, January 22, 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't true there are many sources this article just hasn't been properly developed. Here are a few that could be used.

'''
 * Comment , and  are not reliable sources.   is a broken link.  is a paywall article and needs to get info rom RX prior comment (Received article from RX) - it is an interview piece for such it is not an independent sources. Cassiopeia   talk'''  07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I've rewritten the article and would give significant coverage in Forbes and LA Times as the two best sources now on the page. There are also paywalled articles in NYT 1, 2, 3 and WP if someone has access and wants to take a look. Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added in the NYT and WaPo stories, both of which cover her in depth. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article now clearly demonstrates notability, and I am distressed that the nominator did not do a simple google search to find the mountain of coverage for this person over the past 35 years.  This person has had an extraordinary career and really deserves a much better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. should be kept based on the new provided citations above. Caphadouk (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, could be a HEY. Article looks good in its present state. pburka (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient citations was provided demonstrate notability of the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.