Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collette Divitto

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collette Divitto

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

Individual with Down syndrome who started her own small business and became successful. Yes, this was covered in both CBS News and the Huffington Post, but it seems WP:ROUTINE to me. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for a while. Granted, most of the sources are related to a flurry of news at the turn of the year, but the story continues to circulate---internationally now (e.g., in Hondoras)---and the subject is being called on to receive awards and give talks, so she may continue to have a public presense. If that is the case, it seems wasteful to delete the good work that is here when it could continue to be updated. (Disclaimer: this article was developed by a student in one of my classes.) -Reagle (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - It is a bit 1EVENTish. She has however received previous coverage in 2012 - [1], 2013 - [2], and 2014 - [3]. Someone is pumping the PR here - and for some reason this is reaching the news.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because PR gets repackaged as news does not mean we need to include it in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She clearly is notable. The article indicates: "Collette has been interviewed by dozens of news outlets across the country and the world, including The Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, The Blaze, FOX, and Madrid in the Wave." And she is not only notable, but she is inspiring which means she will in all likelihood remain notable. I say that because news outlets will probably continue to cover her story as it is a bona fide human interest story that is an "evergreen" story. Dean Esmay (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage extends over several years. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now... I think that we can wait on this for a little bit to see if there is further coverage. - Pmedema (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. The nomination is rather defective: "Sure, there are multiple published sources of presumed reliability, but it doesn't seem important to me." That's the point of the guidelines — to provide a set of more or less objective metrics for inclusion so that we don't have to discuss whether we think something is important or not. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2017 (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.