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)

Barbara Res

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant independent coverage in secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. While she's quoted in a fair amount of places as a whistleblower of a sort against Donald Trump, there is insufficient independent biographical coverage of Res herself to justify an article. signed,Rosguill talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not even close to enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I also think there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage with regard to Res' advocacy, showing that she is not 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)
 * 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)
 * At this point, I think this article clears WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage in a variety of published sources that have now been added to the article, including secondary sources (e.g. WaPo describing a connection between Res' description of her experiences and other reports, Atlantic and New Yorker articles incorporating her information, The Independent and HuffPost drawing comparisons with her comments and Mary Trump, the Berkshire Edge review, Newsweek and the New York Daily News noting she is part of a collection of former Trump associates who have published books) that appear to be reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In addition, per 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability also seems supported by the WP:3REFS essay, which states: "In order to show that a subject covered in many news reports is notable, three independent references from three different time periods, would in general successfully rebut notability challenges. References from three different time periods would go a long way to establish the endurance of the subject being covered." The Res article now includes more than three independent references from the 2016 campaign, more than three from the Trump administration, and three from the post-election time period, so there appears to be enduring coverage of Res. In addition to that coverage, the article also includes more than three independent references covering the publication of her recent book, so notability also seems supported per WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Just as 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)
 * 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:AUTHOR. To clarify why I think 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)


 * 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.