Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Samuelson

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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Samuelson

Martha Samuelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article doesn't meet requirements listed under WP:BIO BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication that she's been recognized as notable by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Long-time CEO of a notable company (that is being simultaneously nominated for deletion), often mentioned by (reliable secondary) sources in connection with her management of and work for the company, and sometimes independently as an expert and commentator. here are your sources.Wikidemo (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the CEO of a 400+ person company. She has been cited in reliable secondary sources such as Business Week and The New York Times. If Business Week and The New York Times are not considered legitimate secondary references, please explain specifically which references WOULD be considered legitimate. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that she has received coverage, but the sources cited only look good until you actually click through them. The top result is an obit for a different Martha Samuelson. The remaining sources aren't exactly current; with the exception of a short BusinessWeek interview from 2002, most of those contain single statements that she made in some press releases (and at least one requires paid access). I'm not an expert on WP:BIO by any means - if a mention in a NY Times article from 2005 fulfills the requirement, then so be it. However, I don't think that's in the spirit of the guideline. If we add every CEO to Wikipedia that gave a single quote to a newspaper, then we'd be overwhelmed with superfluous bio's. And some might argue that the 400 person company she's running (full disclosure: I've nominated that article for deletion as well) isn't notable, either. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I looked up the references cited by the competitors to this firm, and have made an entry on the Analysis Group discussion page to that effect. Their competitors in this industry list resources of similar quality, such as The San Jose Business Journal, Vault.com, a 10-K filing from 2005, and, in the case of Cornerstone, their own corporate web site. However, none of these competitors' pages has been tagged for deletion. It would seem that resources such as newspapers, magazines and Vault.com are considered reliable resources for other companies, and I believe that standard should be consistently applied for Analysis Group and for Martha Samuelson. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The IP address of this user upon using nslookup resolves to "Analysis_Group.demarc.cogentco.com" which is a Conflict of Interest. I suggest the closer bears in this in mind -Halo (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Analysis Group and WP:SALT or Delete if Analysis Group is deleted - not individually notable, no sources can be found, 969 google hits for name and the one reliable source refers to Analysis Group -Halo (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, barely notable per WP:BIO. --Sallicio 19:59, 19 February 2008 (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.