Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathi Seifert

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi Seifert

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are no normal references. The person clearly does not meet the criteria for significance and is probably written to order — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyWeAll (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not look as if the unsigned editor did WP:BEFORE. She can be found on This 2001 Forbes list of America's Top Businesswomen, one of just a handful in the top three executive positions of her company, with eleven paragraphs about her. I can't pull up the 2002 :Fortune "Most Powerful Businesswomen" listing, but the same sources that pointed me toward the Forbes list indicate she's on there. The article does need cleanup and better referencing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High-powered career. 41 articles in the Wikipedia Library mention her and most are reliable sources although none are in-depth. The lengthy 2001 Forbes write-up found by NatGertler bears close scrutiny per WP:FORBESCON (bad reliability) and WP:FORBES (good reliability). For people reading this comment, I recommend taking a quick look at those.

The writer, Matthew Herper, is listed as "former staff" not "contributor" ("contributor" is a WP:FORBESCON red flag) but does he count as "staff" (that's a WP:FORBES flag). Presumably he's trusted like staff.
Herper's LinkedIn page indicates good credentials and a solid journalistic career. Nothing about doing PR type writing.
Herper appears on this whitelist of reliable Forbes editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2#Forbes
Herper articles are cited as references for at least 100 of our articles.
The URL does not start with "forbes.com/sites" -- a sign of Forbes.com "contributor" articles
The article gives in-depth profiles of multiple women so this is not a sponsored article.
Siefert is tied for 3rd place on the list.
- The article says "Rankings according to Market Guide" (who or what is "Market Guide"?), although the profile is by Herper.
- Nevertheless, whoever compiled them, the rankings appear very reasonable based on who was who in 2002.

I'm inclined to rate the Forbes article as reliable and in-depth. Combined with the Wikipedia Library stuff, I believe Siefert meets WP:BASIC and, due to her high Forbes ranking and listing on the Fortune list, also meets WP:ANYBIO.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of "former staff" is "was staff at the time he wrote the article", which means the article gets the full Forbes backing. The whole "Forbes contributor" system wasn't introduced until 2010, so it cannot be a concern for ths article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons listed above. Agree with everything Nat Gertler said. Hkkingg (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2023 (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.