Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Garnick


 * 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. John254 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane Garnick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject has no authoritative biography, has not been covered over time in media publications, does not appear to have contributed in a lasting way to the historical record of the charity/investment community. Even if the group "Ladies in Red" were to be notable, notability wouldn't automatically transfer Mbisanz 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her charity work you can forget about, but the External links section seems to establish that she is a big player in the investment community. --Brewcrewer 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might be calling a spade a diamond, but I don't see an External Links section. I do see a notes section with her own website and a five year old web interview of four questions from a french-investing site.  I also see a References section that includes the Invesco website, the five year old interview, a blog-entry reserach paper, and a rather generic interview style article on investing in futures.  How is this a "big" player?  Where is there a followup to this 2002 article on futures investing or indpendent critques or opinions on it? Mbisanz 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Diane Garnick Guest Hosts Bloomberg's Open Exchange" coupled with an interview in an established magazine (if it was five years age, she was notable five years age) shows that she's a "big player." --Brewcrewer 05:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple things, according to the website itself, she didn't "Hosts Bloomberg's Open Exchange" she was a guest on "Bloomberg's Starting Bell", discussing current market trends totally unrelated to the earlier article.  If we set the bar of notability at: "Has appeared on 1 episode of 1 tv program and has been interviewed on an unrelated topic in a magazine", that pretty much opens it to any person whose ever been on the screen of CNBC/CNNFN.  If you google Frank Viquez, you'll get a ton of google hits, newsbites, interviews, etc on automotive finance, but I doubt anyone would consider him a "big player" in the automotive finance industry.  Mbisanz 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did a search and I see at least 5 appearance in November 07 alone Garnick news clips. There is also a big difference between auto analyst and strategist. Each company only has one strateist.  It's a top job at one of the biggest companies.  If everyone wants her on tv and quoted in the financial press, I don't understand why we're debtaing it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.202.2 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Appears to be notable per our guidelines. A number of g-hits which help establish notability, this one for example. - Rjd0060 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the site you gave me. It appears to be a french-language investing site that reproduced a company generated press-release over the hiring of an employee.  I imagine that hundreds of these are released weekly nationwide by Invesco and other companies touting hirings. Mbisanz 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. That was not the one intended.  That is just a press release.  Anyhow, there are several good sources available via a google search. - Rjd0060 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, absolutely notable for her work in derivatives. Note that on the "Ladies in Red" page (no, not a notable charity (it's really more about the social aspects of philanthropy anyway), but worth some mention in her bio) the "lucky guy" is a Nobel Prize in Economics winner. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? She's notable because she took a picture with a Nobel Prize winner and a bunch of other women?  Then shouldn't we have an article on all of those other women?   Corvus cornix  talk  05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have put in bold the part where I said "absolutely notable because of her work in derivatives", since you seem to have ignored it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a clearer example, a (paywalled) profile from Pensions & Investments:
 * Going from college student to global investment strategist helping manage more than $700 billion in just five years is moving pretty fast, but that's what Diane Garnick has done. Only five years after she graduated with a bachelor's degree in business administration from the Frank G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University on Long Island, she has been named global investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors, which has $703 billion under management.
 * That and she's quoted a zillion times as a sage and given thanks in the forewords several investment books, although she's never written one herself. If her peers think she's the bomb, what are we quibblling for? --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She just gave a lecture on how charities can become financially self sustainting and we had to watch her recent interviews and read her research reports. http://www.clipsyndicate.com/searcher/search_process/2641669 User:Hbs07pt
 * Thanks for the quote, I can't see it all cause its pay-per-view. Still would every head global investment strategist be a notable person?  Has she done something really different than stategists in general?  Yes she did a paper on derivatives, but where is the analysis and/or criticism of her derivative theories by her peers.  Not saying she isn't a good financier whose done excellent things, I'm just not buying that she's notable.  Mbisanz 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep depends on what people think of them, which tends to depend upon the amount of money involved. The company is large enough that she's likely notable. Success in business tends to have some correlation with money. DGG (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2007 (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.