Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana L. Fitzgerald


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Diana L. Fitzgerald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite a large number of references listed, does not appear to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Most of the references given are basically directory listings that do not contribute to notability (entries at Florida Far, California Far, Cornell University Law School, Fitzgerald & Isaacson LPP profile etc). There are a few references to news sources, but they all appear to contain 1-sentence mentions of the subject, ref no. 9, ref no. 12, ref no. 13 (2 sentences here), ref no 15. I did GNews searching and found very little else. Does not seem to me to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete--not enough articles about her career to establish gng. I am open to being persuaded however --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet wikipedia policy per above for signifigant coverage. Chase (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I agree that the sourcing is not the strongest, I feel that it meets the GNG. Granted, I would obviously feel this way having posted the article, though I do not disagree that it is lacking in certain respects. - @Rob talk 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate in which way you feel the article meets WP:GNG? GNG requires that the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "significant" means "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the sources cited in the article in your opinion provide such coverage? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article fulfills the General Notability Guidelines because the article details her connection to several notable figures, and has been involved in a number of major companies and organizations, such as Zoo Miami and Fortune 500 companies. - @Rob talk 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thank you, but no, that's not how WP:GNG works. Being connected to notable figures and organizations is not enough and does not make one notable, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To satisfy WP:GNG one needs to show that Diana L. Fitzgerald herself has been the subject of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources. I am not seeing anything of the sort in the article. Several directory-type listings, several refs to her own law firm, several one/two-word mentions in the news media, and the like. I do not see even a single independent source there that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was just rewritten, I thought my version was stronger, but in any case, I do believe that the version I created met GNG.@Rob talk 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Fitzgerald is one of hundreds of business litigation lawyers. There is nothing even remotely special about her. When you have to cite that there was a comment sought from her on an article it just shows that she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I have to chime along with John's message above; the article, I will note, is so noticeably bombarded with claims of other people and entities and then also sources consisting of laced PR, trivial coverage, etc. (The article is not even confidently navigable with such bombarding of sources alongside nearly every paragraph) None of this easily states the basics, of which would be best to start with, not overfocus with PR or other trivial and unacceptable information. SwisterTwister   talk  05:43, 18 September 2016 (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.