Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary T. McDowell

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary T. McDowell

[edit]
Mary T. McDowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Examining this and my searches have simply found trivial mentions and nothing actually suggestive of her own substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a micro-stub of an article with a case of WP:Overcite: "American telecommunications executive. At Nokia, she oversaw new product development,[6][1][7][8] and was in charge of its mobile phones,[9][10][11] as well as strategy.[12][13]" Possibly redirect to Nokia? Otherwise, a non-remarkable business executive with not enough notability to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The subject clearly meets the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and clearly McDowell meets this with 15+ sources including in-depth treatment from the Wall Street Journal. Too many citations is a reason to delete an article? Nonsense -- WP:Overcite is only an essay, not an official guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The topic of "Mary T. McDowell" has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, she is mentioned in the press, especially as it relates to her role at Nokia or new corporate initiatives, for which she's clearly a spokesperson, but this does not tell us much about the subject herself. Just getting press mentions because of her role does not necessitate creating an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm afraid, per Tomwsulcer. (Yes, the one arguing Keep, strangely enough.) If that Wall Street Journal article is the most indepth source we have on her, we don't have any indepth sources. That Wall Street Journal article is not in depth coverage, it's a few paragraphs on what she said in one speech, it's not really about her as such, it's about what she said once. If there are actual indepth sources that cover her life, her career, something like that, I'd be glad to change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources: in-depth here, in-depth here, in-depth here, being the focus of a short article here, getting serious attention in a book here, getting several paragraphs worth of attention in the Financial Times, being the main subject of this article -- many more sources. At current count, there are over 20 references, GRuban. Subject clearly meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about the book -- Ari Hakkarainen was a Nokia employee (so I struck out that line above). Still, your reasoning is unclear -- that since the articles are "either interviews or about the products the company launched" that somehow this makes the sources invalid? What would a source have to say to satisfy you -- something about Mary McDowell's personal life, where she attended school, her opinions about politics, her views on global warming? That's absurd -- she is a business executive -- she markets phones -- that's what she does -- that is what the media reports -- that is what is interesting. Her name is prominently in the headline of many articles in reliable publications, her photo too, of course the articles are not about HER personally but about WHAT SHE DOES and what she does is indeed notable. The general notability guideline says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.... She meets the guideline easily. To me, this is one more instance of a pervasive anti-business agenda bias here in Wikipedia; one can see it at work here if one checks this list of infoboxes of persons -- there are infoboxes for NASCAR drivers and poker players and comics book creators but none for businesspeople.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are better, but still not great; only the CNet one is more than a few short paragraphs, and I can't see the Financial Times one. I'll strike my Delete opinion, but I'm not changing to a Keep yet. Honestly, I tried looking through the sources in the article but they are very very skimpy. The ones I looked at mentioned her in a list of five others, or in a passing sentence or three. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- even CNet is not convincing. For example, the article states: "McDowell, who will report to Chief Technology Officer Shane Robison, is part of the company's office of strategy and technology, which manages acquisitions, divestitures and minority investments." (red link mine) -- if the CTO is not notable, perhaps all the people reporting to him are not notable yet either? I don't think this is anti-business agenda; it's more of a pro-WP:N one. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all of the references are substantial and not all are Reliable Sources, but I found the Cnet and Register articles by themselves to be enough to meet the requirement of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Even the minor stories suggest that this is someone who is high profile in the industry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with MelanieN (talk) here - there's articles that make her the subject, and they're from reliable sources. Bolstered by the multiple mentions in many other articles, I feel the subject meets general notability requirements. CrispyGlover (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per MelanieN and Tomwsulcer. While my initial impression was "puff piece," there is coverage of her criticisms of her industry and other things that take this beyoned the usual corporate blah-blah-bio. Though not all references support WP:N, there are enough independent sources to meet the standard of "significant" coverage... GNG met. Montanabw(talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_T._McDowell&oldid=1089525536"