Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacquelyn Ottman


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacquelyn Ottman

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I can't find significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I don't see that she meets the biography notability guidelines (specifically the creative professionals section) let alone the general notability guidelines --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep While the article feels as if its been polished with a slimy PR brush, it appears that the subject does have some recognition in independent sources, including NPR, Treehugger and a number of green groups. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep!! Please don't delete this! I can add more sources easily, she is a totally "notable" person in her field!!! She is a leader in the field of Green Marketing. I also don't want a "slimy PR" brush on it. How can I remove that. Please tell me how I can make this okay with wikipedia. HELP!!! User:Green31569{Green31569 (talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
 *  Weak Delete An search for sources on Google or Google books finds immediate matches, however on a more detailed examination these invariably turn out to be mentions in books that are intended to list most players in this market or matches with text directly reproducing press releases by Ottman's company. Ottman appears to be a highly effective self-publicist, this results in plenty of tangential mentions or sound-bite quotes in "reliable sources" but these are weak evidence of the significant impact on the historic record that notability requires. My opinion for delete is weak however, as sources are still being added to the article and I would be happy to change to a keep if some substantial sources (not agency sites, PR re-writes or info-mercials) are recovered. Fæ (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After a detailed review of the 11 footnoted citations (see the current article talk page), I find marketing promotional material, industry conference listings, tangential mentions (as a marketing expert) which do not discuss Ottman's notability and one independent interview which establishes her as an expert in her field but does not address impact on the historic record or make any claim to her wider notability. As a result of this detailed review I have now upgraded my opinion to delete as with the search for sources done so far only resulting in tangential or poor quality citations, I see little prospect of unambiguously addressing the notability criteria in the near future. Unfortunately as often happens with self-publicists, notability may be superficially claimed but fails to hold water when only supported by a flood of press release re-hashes and tangential mentions. Fæ (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO lists as a secondary criteria subject is "not irrelevant" It seems you are applying the standard of fame while overlooking the fact this subject is not irrelevant within the field of green marketing.  My 76 Strat  02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep!! Please !!!I have added many new sources. Please change your weak delete User:Green31569{Green31569 (talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment - one !vote each. :) -Addionne (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - oops, sorry. clearly i'm new to all of this...talk)} {Green31569 (talk)}


 * Keep - and expand. A google new archive search turned up some good sources. a New York times new article on this person for example. There are sources out there. -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that seems an odd source to pick out. It says that she was getting married and is a "marketing consultant", neither are grounds for notability. Fæ (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confer 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subjects notability seems clear to me IAW WP:GNG. The article is in poor condition considering it's 2 year history, and does little to enunciate the notability which is contained within the sources. This is an unfortunate byproduct of single purpose accounts which Green31569 seems to identify. Nevertheless I have added this article to my own watchlist and intend to contribute improvements as time permits. I did include some sources to the article which speak to the subjects notability and am comfortable suggesting we keep this article.  My 76 Strat  23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The notability checks out but it was an odd article so I've made a start on 'wikification' - there are some better refs so it is rescuable Thruxton (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I searched for her name and "green marketing" and found ample results.  Look through the edit summaries and the publications name.   D r e a m Focus  23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not actually add some of those cites to the article to demonstrate notability? WikiuserNI (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (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.