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. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Rosato

[edit]

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

I speedily deleted this article because of the lack of evidence of notability, but restored it at request from the article's creator, who believed he could supply evidence. In my opinion, he has failed to do so. Deb (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to be quoted and interviewed in the media as an expert on money matters. NPR, CNN [1] [2], etc. Subject matter experts tend to get some leeway, by analogy with WP:PROF criterion 7. That said, I really don't see that Wikipedia benefits all that much by inclusion, so weak. Ray^Talk 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I have updated the page with additional in-line references (Are these good enough? - you decide and help). I do see her pretty often appearing in the media as an expert on money matters. --ouieak (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless the page can be filled out to demonstrate why she is notable (I'm not in a position to make that distinction) then the page should be deleted. In it's current state it should be deleted. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets #8 close to editor-in-chief and #7 of WP:PROF. --ouieak (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is she editor-in-chief of and in what way is the academically notable? Deb (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said close to. She contributes to magazines...--ouieak (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Deb (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She appears frequently as an expert on money matters etc on CNN, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC US TV Netwrok --ouieak (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the article says, but these statements should be backed up. Glad to see you have now done something to improve the references. Deb (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not in academia, went to one of the top Ivy League schools to earn her MBA. Is she more than a professor of US schools? Not all profs are WP:PROF - we do see her often in the US (Not India or in Australia) on TV. She is an expert in her field. She is an American television reporter and correspondent, American broadcast news analyst and a female journalist.--ouieak (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets #7, #8 close to #8 (not exactly) of WP:PROF. --At-par (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see how PROF # 7 applies here. As for #8, where does it say she's been an editor-in-chief? Which journal? Are there references that demonstrate this? It seems to me that the slightly more general WP:CREATIVE is the relevant guideline. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral - Although she seems to be interviewed a bit and has written many pieces, I can't find any independent sources about her. I think if someone can find at least one independent article of which she is the subject, I would say keep. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urgh, I hate trying to find sources for reporters, you always just find all the junk that they've written. She is clearly notable, having been lead editor. I've added the sources that I could find. There has to be some other method of establishing better notability than with articles directly about someone. I mean, she's been as editor for several different major publications, has gone on numerous television shows for interviews, and has written tons of stuff. That all makes her notable in my head. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well she needs to be notable per WP:GNG. If she's notable then you'd think that she would have been written about. Heck, I can't even find that her alma mater or her hometown newspaper wrote about her. I'm guessing she hasn't won any awards or other distinctions, as those would have popped up by now. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 06:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Ray says, she is quoted and interviewed enough on a notable television news show. Dream Focus 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References have been improved enough for me not to be bothered about it any more. Deb (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (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.