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. Or at best no consensus. By and large editors here think that even if the extensive coverage of this person is in fact based on PR materials, the acceptance of such material by and integration into the reporting of reliable media sources resolves the problem, since it's not normally our job to second-guess the reporting process of reliable sources. Sandstein 12:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Zukerman[edit]

Ruth Zukerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Pure PR, as usual in this field. Much of this is her own personal views on her own life and career, and that's what you'll find in the references also. Getting such stuff published is what high-grade Press agents do (making the polite assumption she didnt write it herself, directly or indirectly). WP at least should be resistant. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pure PR? I went to an event to take pictures (which I have no connection to), saw that we didn't have an article about one of the people who was there (and to whom I have no connection), saw that she was notable (profile in Elle, coverage of the founder elsewhere, talk of the rivalry, profile in Jewish Journal...), and created a short article. @DGG: and you tagged it with COI? Based on what evidence? here are all of the edits made since my original version. Either the entire basis for a COI tag is in those edits (I've just removed the unsourced line about the memoir), in which case you should've just reverted back, or you're saying that I have a COI. There are what? 2-3 sentences of "her own personal views", all of which cite independent publications. I'm aware that press agents can get things published in high places, but we've pretty well decided that e.g. New York Times, Business Insider, etc. are reliable sources by default, so if they're not calling it promotional content and if there's no evidence that it is, there's no justification to throw them out. Look, it's no fun to defend a short meh article I wrote in a couple hours a few years ago, but there's just no reason to delete it. It's not "pure PR" and the subject is notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even just looking at the first page of Google News, there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. While I have no doubt that some sources might have been paid for, as per Rhododendrites, there's no way that some of these reputable media sources would put a promotional article up without some sort of disclaimer. Even the Daily Mail puts a disclaimer up when they run a promo piece! Spiderone 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The New York Times, Vox and Business Insider are reliable sources that don't print articles that are solely based on PR agents' suggestions. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No source is reliable for everything. The NYT is reliable by default, means it's reliable unless there's evidence otherwise. Go read the article there aretell me if you really think it's not a PR interview. I wouldn't say the times prints articles solely on the PR agents suggestions, but it does influence them. Andthe real test is the content. PR is PR no matter who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read the NYT article. It involves a lot of independent reporting, and interviews with multiple people. There is criticism and praise on both sides. It's not PR. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete All the coverage on the article is press-releases, dependent sources or primary in the form of the odd interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Lets go through the first page of Google News, today on the 26 October 2020.

[1]. A smiling face. A press-release and non-rs.

[2] Another picture of her smiling directly at the camera. A press-release. Non-rs.

[3] amNewYork spoke with Zukerman about her book. More PR. Dependent source.

[4] Another picture. An amalgamation of other PR.

[5] Another picture. Photo courtesy of Ruth Zukerman More PR.

[6] An interview. A dependent source.

[7] Same picture as above, looking straight into the camera. An interview. A dependent source.

[8] A proper story, but a passing mention. Not in-depth.

[9] Passing mention.

[10] Passing mention.

The rest are pretty much the same after that point. Lots of passing mentions. No-one is saying that is no coverage. There is tons of coverage, but it is all been generated by her, often using the three pictures. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assessing the current top 10 results at Google News instead of looking at the article? There's a New York Times piece here: "In New York, a Rivalry Shifts Into High Gear". Can you account for that? — Toughpigs (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What a strange rhetorical exercise. A strong delete based on an analysis of sources like Forbes Contributors (i.e. actual PR) that nobody has argued should be included in order to argue that the coverage is PR.... and then stopping after one page. You might as well argue why we shouldn't cite Wikipedia or the company website, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this "I know it when I see it" approach to defining/identifying PR rather problematic sometimes. There are sources which publish press releases and sponsored content. We shouldn't be using those sources, especially if they don't identify paid content as such. Otherwise, if we've evaluated a source's editorial policy to be sound, there's no getting away from the fact that they're going to pull from provided materials to form a story. It happens for basically every subject, not just businesspeople. What matters is that the material is subject to the fact-checking/evaluation/judgment the sources are known for. If a source with a sound editorial policy decides to publish a profile of someone, who are you (the abstract you) to say "but *I* know that it secretly is PR material". That's too far into OR for me. Like, yeah, some small site we're not all that familiar with should be treated with skepticism, but a profile in, say, Elle, or coverage in the NYT or Vox -- that's just what makes someone/something notable. I don't see why we would treat claims that it seems like PR in a publication we've decided is reliable for not confusing PR with real stories as anything more than WP:JDLI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely endorse this, in the context of this AfD and generally. I've seen this "it must be PR" line of argument quite a bit at AfD of late, and I do not understand the grounds for it. If an article in an otherwise reputable source like Forbes says "special to" or "contributor", that is evidence of PR placement. But baseless intuition is not, and we should not give credence to such arguments. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She seems significant in the indoor cycling world. She has a number of good sources including Elle, NY Times, and this Forbes (not listed yet) and this MSN Money interview.Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes contributors are not reliable sources FYI (WP:FORBESCON). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I will still stick to my keep vote, regardless, due to other coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2020 (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.