Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy Covey


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Joy Covey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet GNG or BIO. Prod removed by IP. Discussion on talk, but no substantial changes or additions for over a week (conservatively; I'd really say almost two, and not since the day after creation). This is another one of those articles where no one hears about the person until after they've died, and there is simply no coverage prior to obituaries. Almost all of the sources are obituaries, and the only one that isn't is a quote from Fortune whereby it is stated that the subject was on a list of powerful women execs (because the source is actually a quote about the subject's mother). Per GNG, there is no substantial coverage, and per BIO, the depth of sources is poor (it took six obits to write four sentences). Those sources are reliable and independent, but the lack of depth hampers the "presumption of notability". The gist of the argument on talk is that Covey is "notable" for being a CFO and through that position, raising money for Amazon's IPO. As we know, notability is not inherited, meaning the subject is not notable due to working for Amazon, or for anything related to the day-to-day performance of her job (which is what the fundraising was about; that is part of what CFOs in all companies in similar situations do as a rule). The following may be an OTHERSTUFF argument, but it seems that while CEOs (like Jack Welch, Warren Buffett, Carly Fiorina, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos) can often meet GNG due to coverage of their management and generally high profile in other areas, their CFOs generally do not. MSJapan (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep Obituaries are sufficient to indicate notability, and constitute the kind of coverage that is required by the notability guideline. Status as first female CFO adds to notability. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - GNG requires "significant coverage", and it has been established that there is no substantial coverage of her during her life. If her appointment was such a major item, there should have been coverage on it, and there is not.  There is also no assertion made in either the sources or the article that she was the first female CFO ever. Many companies have appointed "first female CFOs" in their recent histories, including Microsoft, Xerox, Nomura, and so on, so simply being the first at a certain company should not, in and of itself, create notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that the significant coverage used to establish notability should be published during a subject's life. I agree that the "first female CFO" argument is a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The obits all came out at the same time, and have more or less the same information, because they generally originate from the same copy. They're not independently written by every paper, so I have a problem considering them separate sources.  The other articles also all tend to say the same things about her as well.  So I am not convinced that there is depth of coverage so much as rehashing of the same information.  My point about source timing is that nobody thought this person was notable enough during her life (despite the notability claims to the contrary here) to do an in-depth story on her. Wikipedia users have a bad habit of generating articles from obituaries that never go anywhere precisely because nobody had heard of the person until their obit got on multiple Internet news sites, meaning there's nothing else to say other than what the obits have. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where on Earth do you get the idea that The New York Times doesn't publish independently written obituaries? Its obituary was written by David Streitfeld, a staff reporter. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The very first result found by the Google Books search linked by the nomination procedure is a substantial entry in a paper encyclopedia from a major academic publisher, establishing notability. This is clearly a totally unresearched nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, I simply didn't look at Google Books. I almost never do, because the vast majority of their material has never been helpful, because it's always fringe material or old PD books with outdated info.  The fact that there's a book from 2004 available that isn't self-published is quite literally shocking.  Therefore, I find your comments to be rather close to a PA, frankly, rather than a "behavior comment."  I clearly demonstrated that I had looked at sources in my nom, and just because I missed one area does not mean you can discount the entire nom as "unresearched."  Also, it's not "substantial" - every woman in that book has an entry almost the same length as Covey's, and the entry just before hers on "corporate culture" is quite literally just as long.  So, I feel there's some hyperbole in both of your statements. I would also state that one source alone does not meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You discount books in general for being fringe or outdated? You really should rethink your searching strategy, as the best sources for just about any article are books from reliable publishers. Pointing that out is good advice, not a personal attack. The fact that the other articles in that encyclopedia are also substantial doesn't mean that the article about Covey is not substantial, as it covers her directly and in detail as required by our notability guidelines, and that is only the first of many sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (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.