Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Omero


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Margie Omero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, with some overtones of being a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable primarily as a founder of a polling firm. As always, our notability rules do not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every founder of every company -- we require reliable source coverage about her to demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG for that work. But the referencing here consists of two primary sources, one short blurb in an industry trade magazine, one even shorter blurbette that's about her company being acquired by another one and not in any meaningful way about her qua her, one post to a non-notable and non-neutral blog, and her entirely routine wedding announcement in The New York Times. Exactly none of this is the kind of "coverage" that it takes to demonstrate notability for the purposes of earning a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough significant coverage on the subject in independent reliable sources. While there is a good amount about the company she runs, the company is not the subject of this article. Comatmebro  (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I would vote to retain because of her frequent appearance as political interview 'in the current political climate' (as a Republican pollster?) - not because she 'founded a company.  One can look at what is said (and make a judgment), but look also at what is not said (in comments to vote one way or another). MaynardClark (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough reliable source media coverage about her to support one. Doing some talking head on the news can assist notability if reliable sources are writing content about those appearances — but it does not assist notability if you're merely using the existence of the appearances as metasourcing for themselves. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - She is not in an important enough role to support a redirect to Penn Schoen Berland . If she's notable as a result of media appearances (on Sunday morning talk shows, etc.) the entire article needs to be re-created to reflect that. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Then recreate the entire article to reflect that preference or priority (appearing on TV political talk shows). MaynardClark (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck User:MaynardClark's duplicate vote, and note that he is the primary author of this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete definite blatant self promotional Light2021 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could I take this back as an article under creation and Wikify it. Surely we don't want a violation, and I would like to explore whether or not - and how - to construct an article here which is helpful - and NOT promotional.  I have no interest in her career as such, nor in her politics, nor in promoting her as an individual.  There seem to be quite a few such persons who were 'taken into' government in ways that different sorts of individuals were previously placed.  But I cannot find time to work on that until later this week. MaynardClark (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: a WP:BEFORE indicates passing mentions, and regurgitating a single PR-puff-piece, lacking depth and peristence of coverage in reliable sources, so failing WP:ANYBIO. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:58, 29 June 2017 (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.