Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Blackman


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Stacy Blackman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article. Her book is published by Firstbooks.com, and is not even in worldcat. The writeups in CNN are just a string of quotes from her, CNN can be reliable, but sometimes they seem to publish what a publicist sends them.  DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think we should be questioning CNN as a source. They clearly establish that she has been running a business of some note.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although I have lots of friends who are bankers, who are quoted in the financial press all the time who might qualify similarly, I imagine these types of people would generally pass GNG. They probably have alumni magazine profiles with greater biographical detail and such. I don't like these types of articles, but I think they pass.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. BLP is promotional dross. GNG not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. There's no credible assertion of notability either. Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. Misleading WP:VANISPAM article. She was not profiled in those publications as the wiki article claims. This doesn't even mention her. Having one piece published (as a kind of interview) on CNN Money's website doesn't make her notable, as DGG correctly noted. There is one introductory paragraph about her here, but the rest of that is she talking about Charles Schwab (as a former employee). Not imparting her much notability as explained in WP:CORPDEPTH "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I updated the references in the article in the citation format so it's easier to read. The book does appear in WorldCat. I changed the reference from Amazon to WorldCat and added a link to a podcast where the author is interviewed about the book. The write-ups in CNN and Fortune go way beyond just quotes, since they profile previous companies she has founded or joined. In some of those articles her name appears as Stacy Sukov, not Stacy Sukov Blackman or Stacy Blackman, which may have confused the most recent request to Delete. Notability is established by the multiple articles in credible news magazines that reference her and establish her as leader of a new business category - MBA Admission Consulting. It's factual and does not promote the business, rather describes her influence. Artfog (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The book is only held by 8 institutions, so it unfortunately does not contribute to any claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete: Simply a competent professional unless I see some profiles from mainstream news sources dedicated just to her accomplishments.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. How many competent professionals have appeared on the cover of Fortune Magazine? She was profiled in a series of 4 articles in Fortune, and was put on the cover of the 3rd one with her 2 co-founders after they had sold their company to what is now the Knot and were starting a new company at Idealab. I added a link to the cover in the article. That seems to me to fit the criteria of profiles from mainstream news sources dedicated just to her accomplishments. Artfog (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a full biographical profile. I.e., does it tell us about her life partner, children, upbringing, parents, place where she was raised, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How many competent recent MBAs have appeared on the cover of a business magazine doing profiles about recent MBAs? Probably quite a few.  Just the same for doctors with medical publications, lawyers for bar association publications, etc.  I mean more of what Tony is saying, though a series of articles can constitute significant coverage as well.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the topic of the article is unsavory to some since it deals with promotion, people who do promotion for a living can be notable. The topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. -- Green  C  17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 04:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Piled high with bad sources that quote her rather than being about her, fail to even mention her, or seem purely promotional. The only one I saw that doesn't fail in those ways was the Pez one, and that's not enough to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The series of 4 articles Fortune that I mentioned before chronicle her experiences, far more than simple quotes. Can you please point to the articles that fail to mention her? All the articles reference her. Which ones are purely promotional? I addressed all the issues raised in the initial discussion and have responded to the latest delete request. As  Green  C   mentioned above "The topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG." Artfog (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These are trivial mentions of the same story some 15 years ago. They are not remotely of the in-depth character required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Neutral I am not sure if this should be kept or not, but if it is kept, we really need to cut the fluff about all the profiles she has received in various magazines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I edited the article to be more biographical, which I modeled on the wikipedia article for User:David Eppstein - David Eppstein. I believe that fully addresses the concerns raised in the previous comments. —Artfog (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Artfog. I see that your first edit was to create this BLP and that many of your edits have been to it. Do you have a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I first read of Stacy in Fortune and have tracked her career. I have learnt a lot about wikipedia through this process and I think that process has improved the quality of the article. I also realize that should have logged in whenever I've edited other articles in the past so there would be a record of my contributions. —Artfog (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (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.