Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth DeMarse


 * 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. v/r - TP 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth DeMarse

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While sourcing seems to be ok for the subject, I don't think she passes WP:NOTABLE simply by virtue of having been CEO of bankrate.com. She hasn't won any major awards as far as I can see and the article reads more like a corporate resume. Until today, it was far more POV but it has been cleaned up quite a bit, which is what made it popup on my watch list. The top google search is her linkedin profile, and then a forbes user profile. To me this looks like a marketing ploy. N o f o rmation Talk  02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - She seems to have had enough reliable, third-party coverage to pass WP:N. Most of the results of  this google news search are paywalled, but here are few that are not:, a brief article about her, , which contains a paragraph about her, and , a fairly extensive profile of her.  She was president and CEO of Bankrate and CreditCard.com, and also held senior positions at Bloomberg L.P., Citibank, and Hoover's, has been on the board of directors of several enterprises, and seems to have started her own company (DeMarseco) also, which is partnered with Austin Ventures.  --Cerebellum (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 11

December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Too much like a vanity peace.  So she is CEO of Bankrate.com, a regional financial services company with a whopping turnover of $300 million?  I just don't see that as encyclopedic, and if it is, why does the article waste time talking about philanthropic work? --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree it was not well written at first, but has been cleaned up considerably. The third-party sources are reliable and high-quality. It is not promotional now, but factual.
 * Keep. I am having a hard time understanding the person who wants it deleted. For one, this is a crowdsourced encyclopedia.  Whether this person thinks that this entry of person who is one of the leaders of her generation as a female public company CEO, tells me more about what he thinks than what other people think.  He obviously has not done sufficient homework or he would be aware of the many studies about women in business and at Harvard Business School.  One of the problems with Wiki itself is that most of the people who contribute are young males.  This puts women at a disadvantage with regard to an appreciation of biography of a Women.  His comment about why the article "wastes time" talking about philanthropic work betrays his idea that a women CEO is not a complete person, but must be defined by the size of the company she runs.  He is factually incorrect to call Bankrate.com a "regional financial services company," which it is not, but one of the most successful internet companies serving the personal finance consumer market - that made more money as a percent of revenue than almost if not all public internet company including Ebay and Amazon.  This issue is a wiki issue, with the demographics of Wiki contributors at over 80% male and approx. 70% under 30, it must make a concerted effort to not become a site of interest only to that demographic.  Including entry's about successful women around the world will help in that effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediadevelopment (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)  — Mediadevelopment (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Mediadevelopment, crowdsourced or not, we have policies and guidelines in place. Please check your conspiracy theories at the door, and please refrain from guessing about the nominator's motivations. It's in bad taste, it violates a core policy (check WP:AGF), and it doesn't address the matter at hand. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I agree with Cerebellum, despite the use of an SPA above by Mediadevelopment. I'm wondering whether | this article is worth including. I understand and sympathise with the nominator's point of view, but I think at the end of the day she just meets the [WP:N] guidelines. ManicSpider (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.