Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Barcha

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Barcha[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of this biography has no discernible personal notability, just a subservient kind linked solely to another notable person. Being a "muse" is not a notable occupation - other than that, her achievements are few in order to meet the criteria. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No achievements are required to demonstrate notability: we look for significant coverage in reliable sources. She's famous for her association with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but there's plenty of coverage demonstrating her notability. The New York Times and The Times (among many others) wrote extensive obituaries[1][2] on her death last month which practically satisfy WP:GNG on their own. pburka (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka. The Associated Press also ran an obituary [3] that we can add to the pile. (I didn't learn until today that her husband was only able to finish One Hundred Years of Solitude because she "persuaded their landlord in Mexico City to let the rent slide for seven months" [4].) XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified sources; we don't judge notability based on our opinion of the importance of their role. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination is just a naked appeal to institutional misogyny. There is not the slightest attempt to argue that the extensive coverage the subject has received doesn't satisfy the GNG. Instead the nominator asserts that a woman whose spouse is more notable than she is should be treated as "subservient" to him and as undeserving of an individual biography. [5] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What an incredibly strong woman. There is nothing "subservient" about her that I can see. The very fact that she had such a profound impact upon her husband which allowed and encouraged him to win the Nobel Peace Prize is amazing. As stated above, her obituary made it in the Associated Press which we can all agree is a reliable source of notability. She passes the necessary requirements and I would love to see the article further expanded.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information in the article is verifiable to reliable sources and explains why she is notable. It might be short on quantity, but that would be a discussion of whether to merge or expand. I'd like to see it expanded if possible. Archrogue (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2020 (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.