Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Post

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 no consensus. causa sui (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Post

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is apparently not notable --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Every link in this article comes from one single source: The nyc.gov website. Thus, the neither the "multiple" or "independent" sourcing requirements of the WP:GNG are met. — Satori Son 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no real interest in whether this article survives or not, but could I just remark that one shouldn't judge the notability of the subject just by the sources currently used in an article. I got a number of GNews hits from sources definitely independent of the subject. For example, from her period in Florida: Palm Beach Post [1] [2] [3] and South Florida Sun-Sentinel [4] and since she came to New York: New York Times [5] [6], New York Post [7] [8], New York Daily News [9] and Information Week [10] [11]. I don't have enough knowledge of the American press to insist that all of these are reliable (though I think most of them are), and most of them are probably routine - I'll admit I haven't looked closely (and several of them are behind paywalls). So I'll leave it to others to decide whether any of them are worth using. PWilkinson (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those sources. I think they are all reliable sources. I took a quick look at most of them, and it seems to me that they are not so much about her, but rather quotes from her or standard announcements. I do not see significant coverage of her, however. FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the independence of the existing cited sources in the article is questionable, there does appear to be a sufficient supply of truly independent, reliable sources discussing the subject (such as the New York Post coverage of a possible property tax issue in Florida). I strongly recommend the article be rescued ASAP to make the subject's notability clear. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales, can yo point to that Post link? The only one I see is a one liner regarding her residency. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mention. Sources which quote her, or only mention her in passing do not, IMO, meet the bar of GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This link which is from the NY Daily News is primarily about Ms. Post's mission to find and and deal with folks who owe the city money (2Billion$). So that's significant (the whole article), and from an independent reliable source. Not great, but good enough for #1. Then we have a quote in a short paragraph here in the New York Times. Not awesome, but good enough for #2, and we're getting diversity. Then we click on this link already on the page from Information Week which certainly meets every test for RS which profiles the subject and lists her on their list of top 50 government service CIOs. They happen to list her as the first entry, but that may not say anything about the specific ranking. Let me restate: I'm seeing significant Gotham news coverage from multiple sources, then IW calls her one of the top information executives in her field in the country, and puts her on top of the article. She gave the keynote speech at a professional conference hosted by Information Week. There are lots more articles, but not all of them are complimentary. And this magazine article from this April is headlined "New York City CIO Carole Post Named State’s IT Official of the Year". That's a pretty good case for GNG (which is what we always have left). BusterD (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2011 (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.