Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Harris


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stacy Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article looks like a completely legitimate article, but is actually a promotional piece with fake sourcing. Stacy Harris is a non-notable professional blogger and PR consultant who has been exploiting Wikipedia for several years in an effort to promote herself and her website. She seems to have a virtual army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to defend her articles. See, for example, the following discussions which are littered with comments from single purpose accounts: Much of the current Stacy Harris article, including 40 of the last 50 revisions, were written by various sockpuppets of User:TRATTOOO who is indefinitely blocked and has 63 other suspected sockpuppets. This includes virtually all of the article's sourcing which was added in response to another editor's speedy deletion request. Most of the article is currently cited to "Stacy Harris, Encylopedia of Tennessee, 2010, Pp. 332-3" which is a completely fictitious source. The other prominent source "Nashville Magazine, December 2009, Pp. 31-33, 68-69" also appears to be fictitious (although there was a Nashvillle Magazine in the 1960s). In addition to most of the article being unverifiable, it is also written in a promotional style, and fails to establish any actual notability of Stacey Harris. This Wikipedia PR campaign has gone on for long enough and needs to be shut down. Note to closing admin: Please check for sockpuppet astroturfing. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/STACY'S MUSIC ROW REPORT
 * Articles for creation/2006-05-01
 * Articles for creation/2006-12-10
 * Articles for creation/2007-07-28
 * Articles for creation/2006-05-22
 * User talk:Music_Row
 * User talk:Counterpart0
 * It also looks like Stacy's Music Row Report has been recently recreated by one of the sockpuppet accounts (with questionable sourcing). Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the only refs are from quite a while ago. I did a search on the archives of the Sarasota paper, and I've got some questions about that source based on the few lines they show (paywall to see full article).  Here's the link, the article used is 2 down "Actually ...".  It doesn't look like something usable as a source, more of a "hey, look what I found!".  And the creator's only edit was to create that article.  Hmmm, methinks a sock.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other source doesn't appear much better. Paywall again, but here's a link to the intro.  Article doesn't seem to be about the site.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, to be fair, the Tennessee Encyclopedia does exist - . It's being used as a source that Harris wrote some small summary articles of various people?  Seriously, that's like using the fact I've edited various article here that I'm notable!  Absolutely not a useful source.  Writing something like those articles does NOT belong in an Encyclopedia entry about someone.  We don't list every possible article someone has written, only notable ones, and those fail.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those citations are legit, although probably the least significant for the article. Just to clarify for anyone following along, the citations to articles written by Stacy for Tennessee Encyclopedia are legit. The citations to the article about Stacy in the "Encyclopedia of Tennessee" are fake. Kaldari (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - completely agree with you about that! Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm on a roll, other misrepresentations of sources - this is used to source "founder and executive editor of Stacy's Music Row Report", article only says editor. Given the name, I'm not questioning it, but the source is completely misrepresented there.  Primary source is the TN Ency which I don't feel does anything with regards to notability.  Harris has written articles for the TN Ency, very easily could be a backscratch.  Heck, she could have written it!  Her article is not available online, so have no idea.  The references are notably bare about the authorship.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To get back to Stacy's Music Row Report, it was previously AFD'd in 2007. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's deal in informed opinion ("This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography... This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism") and in facts (separating each from that which is not credible).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is a middle ground here. The legitimate article should stand based on the Stacy Harris' credentials.  Sourcing confirms Stacy Harris (the correct spelling) as a longtime contributor to hundreds of publications over a period of some 35 years, a published author of several books and a contributor to several others.  Stacy's Music Report exists and is notable for not only for its unique blend of country-music news and opinion-  you will not find such articles on the Country Music Foundation as are linked to Stacy's Music Row Report (http://stacyharris.com/adultery.html) on cmt.com or countrymusichall.fame.com, for that matter.  Some might argue musicrow.com also has this blend, but Harris has successfully contradicted this notion.  (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0DC163BF93AA3575BC0A96F9C8B63.) Since she reviews music and books she has a relevance to the industry she covers and with an added media criticism page at http://stacyharris.com/mediawatchdog.html she appears to be the only current "one stop shopping source" of local, regional, state and national media criticism.  Harris is not a "professional blogger."  It is very clear that the minimally advertiser-supported "free" site is a loss leader used to entice paid subscriptions  (see http://stacyharris.com/paid.html).   The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture (hardback) does, in fact, contain the original print version of Harris' articles on Brenda Lee and Carl Perkins.  Harris' article on Harlan Howard appears only online.     While there is no reason to doubt Harris' contribution to the world of academia (http://www.jewishsouth.org/journal_new.htm), her pre-Internet broadcasting nor acting credentials, given her age, background, etc., the 2010 reference to the encyclopedia and the reference to Nashville Magazine would be bogus (the magazine has been defunct for years) as apparently is the reference to a half-sister.  (Why a legitimate genealogical reference to Samantha Harris would be removed and a fake one substituted makes as little sense as one editor's complaint about lack of sourcing when the sourcing has been deleted.) Perhaps because Harris is a controversial public figure (see the introductory information at http://stacyharris.com/faqs.html) there are some editors who seek to question her notability.  But the unsolicited testimonials at http://stacyharris.com/industry.html,  http://stacyharris.com/media.html and http://stacyharris.com/fans.html tend to suggest otherwise as should the previously cited legitimate credentials.  The article should be improved, not deleted because of discomfort with the subject's viewpoints, competitive jealousy, or some other attempt to marginalize the subject and to undermine tje efforts of Wikipedia's legitimate contributors.  But there should definitely be an investigation of the bogus sourcing and repetition of the same links as in the Nashville Magazine "links" as the case for the Stacy Harris entry stands on its own.  74.179.25.175 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources about the person, documenting the person's life and works independently, reliably, and in depth, not sources by the person, are what are relevant to this discussion. So far, you haven't cited a single one, and neither does the article.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources! Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the post above by 74.179.25.175 is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and the address geolocates to Nashville. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or prune At a minimum, a major cutback on the article without interference by the various socks is needed. As it stands, the article is at least 75% puffery, full of non-notable information that anything but encylopediac.  Seriously - a mention of being a paid extra?  Being a plaintiff in a lawsuit?  The article is, simply put, a PR piece for Harris.  I'm struggling to see any reason for her notability in the article or searching on-line.  Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest editors take a look at this article's talk page discussions, as well as the deleted article links listed above, to see how this COI editor's "middle ground" comment is not any kind of offer to work with other editors, but a summary of how this editor has consistently edited over the past five years and exactly how this editor will continue to edit. This editor continues to express a willful ignorance of Wikipedia policy, the intention to relentlessly readd the same trivial details, wildly exaggerated claims and sourcing that doesn't meet WP:RS, can't be verified or does not support the statement, aggressively challenge and bully any editors who try remove or edit the article, and complain that the same persecution, jealousy and fear that keeps her from getting press credentials to the CMAs is also shutting her out from sharing the minute-by-minute account of her life's every single accomplishment, whether they actually happened that way or not. Without clear boundaries and a community of editors willing to enforce them on this article, delete, prune, gut, whatever; we'll be back here in a year defending our stance that posting comments on article pages does not constitute "significant media coverage". Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If "this article looks like a completely legitimate article" where does it follow that it "is actually a promotional piece?" What is the basis for calling an entry, added to and excised by any number of contributors a period of evidently some months, "at least 75% puffery."

Being a paid extra is presumably not a big deal in Hollywood (even though the overwhelming numbers of unemployed SAG members at any one time are staggering). Being a paid extra over a period of several decades in Nashville is like any other acting credits, including the others cited- impressive for any woman, particularly as she ages. I don't see a mention of being a plaintiff in a lawsuit but, if there is one, agreed. There is no relevance.

The statement refuting Stacy Harris being a blogger has already been addressed on this page. If she is a "PR consultant" presumably she is promoting clients. Not herself. (Can you even find a photo of her, a full name or a DOB, etc. on her own Web site?)  Where is the evidence that either she or her presumed but "army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets" have been "exploiting Wikipedia for several years" (presumably undetected in this conspiracy, I gather)? If this could not be proven in court, perhaps it should not be written at all, let alone as gospel.

All fictitious sourcing should be removed. Agreed. Anything written in a promotional style should be rewritten by the person making that judgment.

Every living person profiled in Wikipedia who is internationally-recognized as a professional and an expert in her/his field would seem to pass the notability test. To be a member of the inaugural class of an internationally-recognized leadership organization such as Leadership Bluegrass, for example, is but one of the several easily verifiable examples (http://www.ibma.org/events.programs/leadership.bluegrass/alumni.asp). Email from music industry professionals, fans and industry experts from all over the world (as documented by posted testimonials) are another. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor is put off by yet another of Harris' achievement: her having been a Mensan.

Harris was also the editor for the top country-music publications of her time. These statements establish credibility and are no more statements of self-promotion (not only, but most especially, when Harris is not making them) than anything that any accomplishment an employer would WANT to see, as an example of excellence in the field, on any fact sheet or resume. Similarly, Harris apparently built on the achievements mentioned bringing her to the attention of ABC Radio News and Newsweek creating opportunities to represent them in Nashville.

While it's easy to pick apart any Wikipedia entry, if one is so inclined, to criticize the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture for its short entries- when the original publication (in hardback) is only a single volume- is ridiculous. (While a single-volume encyclopedia of any subject- of which there are more than I can count- may seem silly, perhaps that's what persuaded the publisher of this particular volume to do an online expansion.)

Re: Stacy's Music Row Report. It evolved from an online bulletin board presence in the early days of the internet when Harris worked for the owner of nashville.com who has since gone on to be a "Tea party" type watchdog. It was then part of the (now defunct) Country On Line before it became part of roughstock.com., geocities and later countrymusicreport.com.

The biggest problem with the Stacy Harris entry, apart from the someone imaginatively providing her with a half-sister, the repetitious entries and other obvious, previously-cited information that one would think editors would have removed, is that some sections are not well-organized. The broadcasting section should include nothing more than her broadcasting credits. Writing credits should be moved to the writing section.

With so many pointless revisions resulting in the removal of sourced material, the excising of this documentation tends to blunt the criticism of poor sourcing other than that mentioned.

Beware of any Wikipedia "contributors" who make additions that are dishonest or try to make subjects such as, in this case, Stacy Harris more impressive (or even notorious) than they already are, but also beware of those who excise, as they, too, appear to have an agenda other than securing for Wikipedia a reputation for credibility and excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.44.105 (talk)


 * Delete - Spam, and serieous verifiability issues. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for a multitude of reasons, the main one being that no evidence has been provided of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I can find no such evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I, too, am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phil Bridger and others. It seems to keep coming back to coverage, which we require to document notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia notability and legitimate citations have been established as has the fact that some of the notability is pre-Interent. That many citations have been excised has apparently gone unnoticed by those editors who suggest otherwise yet have not spent much time contrasting edits. As far as one editor's suggestion that Harris is resting on her laurels, that is what many successful people who have saved their money are content to do tend to do as they approach retirement.

Nevertheless, Harris' peers have weighed in at http://stacyharris.com/industry.html and http://stacyharris.com/media.html while Stacy Harris' online bio (at http://stacyharris.com/author.html) indicates that her work has been acknowledged in books written by Eileen Sisk, Ivan Tribe, Steve Eng, Alanna Nash, Tom C. Armstrong, Cliff Linedecker,  Stephen Miller, Anne Fletcher, Staff Sgt. Barry (Ballad of the Green Beret) Sadler, Warren B. Causey and Rick Marschall and by Adam Compton in The Texas State Historical Association's The Handbook of Texas Online, while authors Karen Breen and Judith Silverman acknowledged Harris' children's books in the Index to Collective Biographies for Young Readers (1988) and author Hao Huang cited Stacy Harris' oeuvre in Music in the 20th Century, Volume 2 (1999). All of these sources are readily available (in libraries, book stores, or via a check of Amazon.com) and verifiable, whether it be by a simple look at an acknowledgment page, index or page number.

For example, author John O'Dowd acknowledges Harris's contribution to one of his articles at http://www.hollywoodstarletbarbarapayton.com/samijo/page5.html

Further Harris has been interviewed by abcnews.com, Poz Magazine, Glenn Whipp, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News,, Chad Dougatz, of launch.com and the Launch.com Radio Network’s New York bureau, Dave Retseck, a reporter for Crystal Lake, Illinois’ Northwest Herald, BBC Business News reporter Kate Noble, WMAQ-TV (Chicago) weekend co-anchor/reporter Anna Davlantes, by Steve Penbrook, arts and entertainment editor for the (Fort Wayne, Indiana) Journal Gazette and by Family Chronicles' contributor Barbara Krasner-Khait (http://www.familychronicle.com/ReadingTheOmens.html).

Additionally, Harris who, for many years was a regular contributor to Country Music People (the United Kingdom's largest country-music publication) was listed in the 2002 British Country Music Association Yearbook (34th edition).

Writing in the December 2002/January 2003 issue of Shout (the magazine of "Insurgent Thought + Culture"), Andy Baker, in an article titled Hey There Cowboy: Is New Country the Ambiguously Gay Genre?, for which Harris was interviewed) referred to her as "Stacy Harris, a Nashville-based journalist highly regarded for her exhaustive, behind-the-scenes reporting of the [country-music] industry."

All of the above are unsolicited and not the work of sockpuppets or meat puppets. Similarly, that Harris is an author of several books about the areas of her expertise is not in dispute.

Her music reviews are featured in numerous artists "internet press kits" of the artists whose work she has reviewed (when those reviews have been favorable) and it is THEY who deem her work important enough for THEM to use for promotional purposes. Similarly, Multi Talent Management/ publicistwire.net (http://www.publicistwire.net/PDF/Arts_Entertainment.pdf) includes Harris among its international list of notable media contacts.

Both The New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0DC163BF93AA3575BC0A96F9C8B63) and The Wall Street Journal (Thomas E. Weber, April 30, 1998) have acknowledged Harris' role as the editor and publisher of Stacy's Music Row Report. 98.87.45.196 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 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.