Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary C. Crowley


 * 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. Ever since relisting, everyone here have voted in favour of keep (7 votes for keep). The article us well developed and sourced ever dince nominating for deletion. I am pity happy with the article at the moment. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mary C. Crowley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and written in unclear tone. The article is also orphan. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Article is certainly NOT an "orphan." To start with, there is the son who inherited her fortune.IceFishing (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect and selective merge to Home Interiors and Giftswhile there are a couple of secondary sources with significant coverage cited, it's not clear that they're reliable as they're published by advocacy groups without clear expert credentials. Moreover, all of the subject's notoriety would appear to arise from their founding of Home Interiors and Gifts. signed,Rosguill talk 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC) struck 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Home Interiors and Gifts has only one source. The sourcing for this article is also problematic. historyswomen.com is very questionable and reads more like a hagiography than a biography that we can use. drjamesdobson is an interview. https://www.worthpoint.com is useless, I've got the impression much of the information is actually based on her own books? The nyt arrticle could be used to beef up the article on the company. I do think both are notable, but a merge may be best, until we find more, and better, sources. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I largely agree about the sources (have not looked at NYT or Dobson) and removed the Worthpoint (can't believe such a garbage source was included) and bloggy, saccharine, unsourced Historyswomen.com. Better sources mus tbe found.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition to the coverage of Crowley and the large, profitable company she founded and ran, she is discussed in books that come up searches, both her Christian piety and her business success can be sourced.IceFishing (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I dont see any RS on her specifically covering her as a subject worthy of chronicle? The refs quoted are either no RS (e.g. blogs), or are about a later sale of the comaany (NYT), but not her? Can't see a standalone BLP here. Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is, for example, this PhD dissertation: The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449.IceFishing (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That could be a funded piece by ber company from a lower tier university. No RS seems to want to cover her in any form.  No WSJ, NYT, even regional news? Britishfinance (talk)
 * I'm less inclined to assume that the piece was funded in an underhanded manner, but a PhD dissertation is only as reliable as wherever it's been published; this book does not appear to have been professionally published. signed,Rosguill talk 22:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an underhanded act per se - corporations fund/sponsor such pieces legitimately as part of their own corporate history development. Regardless, I agree that it is unsuitable. Britishfinance (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A PhD student choosing for the subject of his or her dissertation a figure in its university's past, including a donor, is hardly surprising, unethical, or otherwise problematic. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." If it is a real dissertation that went through the IRB process, it should be in Proquest Theses and Dissertations or some similar location. At the least, it would certainly be prudent to view the dissertation's bibliography for potential sources for this article. If there is enough about Crowley for a dissertation, there is probably enough for a Wikipedia article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, here, for example: WOMEN AT THE TOP, Roan, Shari. Sun-Sentinel; Fort Lauderdale [Fort Lauderdale]12 Mar 1985: 1.D. "Women own 25 percent of all small businesses in the United States and are the fastest-growing segment of the small business community, reports Savvy magazine. But women are making strides in big business as well.


 * Estee Lauder, chairman of Estee Lauder cosmetics, leads Savvy's second annual list of the top 60 companies run by women. The top women and their companies are:


 * 1) Estee Lauder, Estee Lauder, chairwoman.


 * 2) The Washington Post, Katharine Graham, chairwoman.


 * 3) Wells, Rich, Greene Inc., Mary Wells Lawrence, chairwoman.


 * 4) Home Interiors & Gifts Inc., Mary C. Crowley, president.


 * 5) Liz Claiborne Inc., Elisabeth Claiborne Ortenberg, president.


 * 6) Christian Dior, Colombe Nicholas, president.


 * 7) Diane Von Furstenberg Inc., Diane Von Furstenberg, chairwoman.


 * 8) Jockey International Inc., Donna Wolf Steigerwaldt, chairwoman.


 * 9) Mary Kay Cosmetics, Mary Kay Ash, chairwoman.


 * Although many women are making it big in fashion and cosmetics, two of the three fastest-growing companies run by women are in other industries: computers and machinery. Thirty-two of Savvy's top 60 companies were founded by women."
 * SOURCES. Another PhD dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955; Manko, Katina Lee. University of Delaware, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2001. 3013632.  Covers the company as a type (similar to  Avon).  and, no, I have not yet read either of these doctoral theses, I merely scanned them.  However, a PhD dissertation is certainly a valid source.  I do hope that editors will conduct searches in newspaper archives from this period.  I have added several profiles from major newspapers.IceFishing (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , It think it's worth pointing out that there are many similarities between Crowly and Mary Kay, and at some point, we will see a proper biography, or one of those "oops, here's an obituary we forgot to write" in the NYT. I'm worried that, at the moment, the sources don't amount to much. It's a bit of a "but surely sources will appear" case. Perhaps we should wait for those. How much of the article is worth saving and has acceptable references? Vexations (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Tag removal. removed the notability tag without an edit summary or other explanation. When I reverted this with an edit summary (as we are discussing the notability in this discussion, the tag is still relevant to the article), IceFishing reverted to remove the tag again. I am going to add the tag one more time. I have no intention of passing the reversion threshold, and I hope other editors will discuss here and/or assist with the dispute resolution process if it comes to that. IceFishing, please stop removing the tag and please start adding even brief summaries to your edits. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I thought that since I had added sources, and the article was being discussed for deletion, the "tag" was superfluous.  I'm still not clear on why both a removal discussion and a notability  tag are necessary.  But I do apologize.  Does the "tag" get removed when the discussion ends?IceFishing (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with removal/non-removal of notability tags during AfDs as the AfD will decide it regardless. Wouldn't sweat this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I posted this here because you reverted despite my edit comment summary. I think the article will meet notability requirements due to the improvements editors (especially you) have made. When this discussion is ended, if it is a keep and the consensus is that it meets notability, the tag will be removed. It's relevant while the discussion is going on; editors should see that it's been tagged for x length of time. If the outcome is "no consensus", and if that's due to lack of consensus on notability, it should remain (if it survives as no consensus, its being tagged from an earlier date is relevant). If the article is deleted, it won't be an issue. Also, please add edit summaries. See this. You can always type something brief, like "cite" or "add info" Peace! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I need to get up to speed on doing and reading the edit summary things. But, User:Britishfinance, User:DiamondRemley39, I am puzzled.  First, because I have seen discussions close as "keep" while that tag remains in place.  Also puzzled because when a "notability" box is added 1 day before the AfD discussion is started, what his the point?  A deletion box and a notability box seems like overkill.  Also,  Isn't the notability box notice there to serve as a request that editors add sourced information?  And if so, then, in a case where an editor or editors have added sourced information, why can't an editor who has just responded to the notability box by adding sources delete the box?IceFishing (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Vexations, Please look at footnotes 2, 8, 10, and 11. Two of these articles are are from the The Dallas Morning News, one from the Dallas Times Herald, the last is form the Saturday Evening Post: .  I have just been to look at Notability (people).  It seems very odd that there is not a heading under something like "Entrepreneur" that might stipulate founding a corporation of a certain size as notable.  But these four articles, together with the doctoral dissertation appear to meet WP:BASIC.  IceFishing (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see additional validating material in searches, but get only snippet views, for example : THE TEXAS 100 The Lone Star made a mark on these women-and they made their on it: Watson, Paula. Dallas Morning News; Dallas, Tex. [Dallas, Tex]10 Mar 1999: 5C.  Crowley: Founder of Home Interiors,....IceFishing (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am becoming more convinced by some of the refs added that this could be a keep and that this was an important woman in US business - going to take a longer look. Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus coverage in books, in both Christian books and scholarly books; Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press has discussions of her corporate style that are both in depth and extensive.  I do not at all understand why this old article that I stumbled on is generating so much notability denial.  It's a great Horatio Alger story, with blue-chip sourcing, albeit the ladylike, a-womans-plase-is-in-the-home style of this corporate mogul has gone out of style.  But she was a real mogul.  With real sources of the kind Wikipedia requires.IceFishing (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The improvements have been taken place during this process. It was a poor article before, rife with typos and weak writing that did not properly communicate notability. Looking much better now! I and probably others will be voting accordingly soon. Good work! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see that deleting this article will do anything to improve the encyclopedia. The article has much improved since this AfD. Vexations (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough refs now to support GNG, and clearly her business, which she founded, was a material size for the time (circa $1 bn), which would have made her one of the most successful US female executives in America at that time. Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY signed,Rosguill talk 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a successful businessperson. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant sources found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If the lede is true she was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (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.