Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Byrne

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Byrne

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

fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as although the 158-history is certainly noticeable, my searches found only some News coverage and nothing to suggest better independent notabiltiy. Had she been mentioned at another article, I would've suggested moving there but there's isn't. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is certainly notable within the world of finance; coverage outside of financial media is not as clear-cut, but for example her role in pushing the Women in Leadership index has gotten substantial attention. For what it's worth, there are profiles of her in American Banker (ranking her #3 on this year's list of "Most Powerful Women in Finance") [1] and Politico (calling her "one of the most accomplished and powerful women in the banking industry") [2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that to call someone notable on the basis of being the __th most notable woman in whatever is condescending and sexist and implies lower standards. The first woman to have entered a profession previously closed to them is of course notable historically but that's a different matter, because there we go by historical standards, which were in fact sexist. I recognize that there is still remanants of this is some fields today, which may provide a counterargument, but I still think it condescending. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single article in the Wall Street Journal isn't enough to meet WP:SECONDARY. Also, a "Vice-Chairman" title at an investment bank is a joke. It's what investment banks give you when they take away your management responsibilities and make you "emeritus". The only positive implication is that now women can break through the glass ceiling and THEN be superannuated gracefully. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2015 (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.

Barbara Byrne

zproxy.org