Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Haller

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Haller

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ireneshih - No indication of significance? She's been on a ton of Boards, some of which include the World Security Institute, The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and being the Board Chair at Free The Children, one of the most successful non-profits in the world. The references in the article include a Forbes article about her being honored at a Forbes Women Leadership Event, a Huffington Post article detailing her life and work, a website that journalists use for sources, and numerous credible non-profit websites. This is my first article on Wikipedia, and certainly won't be my last, but I thought that Haller was an interesting subject for my first piece. I was surprised she didn't already have one! -United191 10:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate significance, just take a look at the 'books' link you set up... when you click it, the first to come up is quite obviously Haller - entitled "Do Your Giving While You Are Living: Inspirational Lessons." United191 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are we moving forward with this? United191 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't quite find her to be notable as Wikipedia defines it. Philanthropy is nice, serving on boards of directors is fine, being an activist is all very well - but none of those things by themselves amount to notability. In order to have an article here, a person must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and I could find none. The only Reliable Source cited in the article is the obituary of her first husband. The other citations are either based on information she herself supplied, or are not what we consider a Reliable Source. And I could not find significant material for either Eva Haller or Eva Roman on a search. It sounds like she is a wonderful and remarkable woman, but without the independent sources to prove it, we can't have an article on her. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first article on Wikipedia, but I did A LOT of research for it, to avoid this specifically. Although the only reference that you said was trustworthy was her late husband’s obit, there are article in the page from Forbes, the Huffington Post, Jane Fonda’s blog, University websites, and many more. I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and I’ve seen tons of people with less ‘notability’ than this woman. Understandably, some of the information from these references came directly from her, but some absolutely did not. I invite you to go and read the two books I cited, and the book that comes up when you search for her via the book database on the AfD page. I read them in their entirety.

To me, there’s also a principle of the matter. People from her generation, especially that did a lot before the Internet age, don’t have an extensive online record of their life. I went through all of the information that could be found online, which is extensive and consistent, and THEN more external sources to make sure that this is a reliable article.

For many people who aren’t necessarily at celebrity status, like this woman, there is no one place that lists everything that they’ve done, except for Wikipedia. If she isn’t ‘notable,’ there are thousands of other pages that should be taken down. She is the Board Chairwoman, at 83, for the largest non-profit in Canada, Free The Children. She's been around since their inception… and because of their work incorporating all of society into a child's education, their success is used as a model for other charities and people trying to build in Third World countries!

She’s a Nazi survivor, philanthropist, and change maker. Three of her projects have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (one is Free The Children). She is not only notable, but she is significant. She’s made much more of a change through being on these Boards, it seems like, than you or I will probably ever make in our lives! We need to keep a record of these people that have helped create and shape society so that when generations upon generations after us go back to look and find out who was responsible, the record will accurately stand!

If we write her off, then we are essentially going to be writing off an entire generation of people's information that have limited resources from which we can research… They had the unfortunate experience to be born before the Internet age… what we are telling them is that their accomplishments and contribution to society did not matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia to record all the important people and events that we would find throughout history, not just the ones who happen to be fortunate enough to be born in the Internet age!

This is a woman who has been given awards by the United Nations, AARP, Forbes, and many others, at the very least, that is notable.

Let’s find a way to make her page stay. You have to realize, that when you say we should delete it, you’re essentially writing her life off as not notable enough to be remembered and unbiasedly reflected upon on Wikipedia, based of off a number of reliable sources.United191 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Forbes and Huffpost have a reasonable amount of coverage, but that's about it toward meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post & Forbes articles are great, but there are many more sources to be found... I'd suggest you also take a look at the Red Room Magazine article, and all of her bios from different Boards. They are all consistent with what the other publications are saying, and provide even more detail and context. United191 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see clearly that she has met the criteria for WP:BIO with the two basic criteria for any article: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times - she has been honored by the UN, Forbes, AARP, and the Rubin Museum, just to name the ones that I found. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - she has been with Free the Children since the year after they were founded, and has lead the Board since then... it's now the largest non-profit in Canada. She's been on National Security Boards, by receiving the AARP Mentorship Award, we know she has mentored countless people, and lastly, she's been awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by UNFPA - as is verified by pictures of her on their Facebook page, and text on their website. United191 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone reviewing this has some time tomorrow, watch 60 Minutes on CBS before the Super Bowl. It looks like her project, Free The Children, will be featured. United191 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I think the best possible solution is to keep the article and continue editing it... the notability is definitley here, and it seems like everybody has aknowledged that (even MelanieN on her own talk page). United191 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the extension of this page... any more input? How shall we proceed? United191 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, the nomination's rationale "no indication of significance" is vague relative to content in the article, in which indication of significance does exist. Some source examples that demonstrate this subject passes WP:BASIC include:

Forbes
Do Your Giving While You Are Living. pp. 71-72. ISBN 160037851X
Huffington Post (newsblog)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Northamerica1000 - passes WP:BASIC with flying colours, and I see definitive significance. The last few AfDs I've commented on today haven't had the amount of reliable sources that this one does, like the ones in the above list. Maybe some other sources can be added, like the book above, but they're already relatively well covered in the original version. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the book Northamerica1000 mentioned to the article... SayItRight1 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (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.