Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma Tisch

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Tisch

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

On its face, it fails WP:GNG. Her only notability seems to be WP:INHERITED. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator of the article has added a section about Tisch's philanthropic activities. It's certaily a significant and welcome improvement to the article, but I'll withhold judgment until I see that the editor is done and I've had a chance to review the material and sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what's been added, I'd say keep. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her control of the Tisch business interests has given her a net worth in excess of a billion dollars as confirmed by coverage in several reliable sources, and at one time, she was one of only two American women billionaires. Her wide ranging philanthropic work is also verified over many years. Though she is not a high profile person, she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2013 (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.