Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Spikes

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. Looks like there's not going to be any agreement on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Spikes[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a decent amount of significant, independent coverage (Time, Inc., (1, 2 Variety). There are a few reviews of his recently published book, Black Founder: The Hidden Power of Being an Outsider, such as this review in The Washington Informer. He founded a notable film festival (no Wikipedia article yet, but it has significant coverage in Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter...), for which he received the Made in NY Award. He's also been involved in the executive production of a number of notable films (such as Punks (source) and King of the Jungle (source)). Lots of coverage covering him in the context of the notable company MoviePass, of which he is a founder and CEO (Forbes, The New Yorker, Business Insider, WFLA), and in the context of other business ventures (The Hollywood Reporter). Mooonswimmer 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine the references above each in turn against the WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV and then we will examine the references in the first two blocks as there is only 11 refs there:

Comment The first three references are PR as he is launching a new a company.

Ref 1 [1] That is interview done by Mariah Espada. It is significant but not independent. and interviews can't be used to establish notabilty.

Ref 2 [2] This an interview.

Ref 3 [3] That is PR and not independent.

Ref 4 [4] This is a press-release and is non-rs.

Ref 5 [5] Book review. Potentially notable on that, but it not really a review

Ref 6 [6] No mention

Ref 7 [7] No mention

Ref 8 [8] No mention

Ref 9 [9] Passing mention.

Ref 10 [10] Passing mention

Ref 11 [11] Contributor. Non-RS

Ref 12 [12] This is an interview.

Ref 13 [13] Business Insider is junk. It is an interview. It says it in the article.

Ref 14 Can't see it. GDPR

Ref 15 [14] This a PR for his new company. More interviews.

Looking at this, 4 interviews, 5 passing mentions, 1 press-release, 2 PR entries, 2 non-rs and a book review which is pretty poor. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. Essentially there inteviews in the context of moviepass and PR for his new company. On these he doesn't meet one of the criteria of WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles were linked primarily to provide additional context, as Underworld's significance is not evident when solely reading Spike's article, and some information lacks proper referencing. I'm adopting a holistic and comprehensive approach, integrating "interviews" and articles like Ref 3 and Ref 4 (which I wouldn't outright dismiss as press releases) with other indicators. These include:

Spikes' significant role in founding and relaunching a notable company (which has been extensively covered in reliable sources and described as "influential", "disruptive", "revolutionary").
His contributions to notable works and his executive roles.
His establishment of a renowned film festival (which has seen attendances of 30,000+ and has been covered extensively in publications such as Variety and The New York Times, which has described the festival as "the biggest competitive black film festival in the United States").
His recognition through a "Made in NY" award, which "celebrates excellence in New York City's creative community and recognize the achievements of individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to the City's entertainment and digital media industries" and has been awarded to the likes of Spike Lee, Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Nas, Seth Meyers, Robert DeNiro, Patina Miller, Caroline Hirsch, Aziz Ansari, and Steve Buscemi.

Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability suggests that a variety of interviews with supplementary material and analysis from reputable publications like Time, The New Yorker, and Inc. can be viewed as evidence of notability. Although this is an essay and not a guideline, it aligns with WP:BIO, which emphasizes notability as determined by independent parties who publish substantial works focused on the subject. In the case of Spikes, the Time article, for instance, goes beyond a raw, unedited interview and offers some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman. Why wouldn't it be considered a piece of secondary, independent coverage?

In my opinion, these elements collectively construct a compelling case for his notability. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 is PR not a press-release.. [15]. None of the these references above at independent. None of them thate not passing mentions or don't mention him. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I read press release for both. Can you address the holistic approach to Spikes' notability? In your opinion, none of what I listed is significant? The fact that independent journalists writing for Time, The New Yorker, Inc. considered him notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon him, the fact that he was the founder of a very influential and notable company, the fact that he established a renowned festival, the fact that he has contributed to notable works, the fact that he was been the recipient of a distinguished reward for making significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industry. None of it contributes to notability? Mooonswimmer 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Lets the first two blocks of the article, the first 11 references:

Ref 1 [16] This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 2 [17] This is a good WP:SECONDARY ref but really about Moviepass and it downfall.

Ref 3 [18] This is the interview. Same ref as above.

Ref 4 is Ref 1

Ref 5 [19] Another interview style article. It is not independent.

Ref 6 [20] Passing mention.

Ref 7 [21] It is non-rs.

Ref 8 [22] Copied from the website, via press-release.

Ref 9 [23] All copied from the book. It is WP:PRIMARY. It is PR.

Ref 10 [24] Another interview. Not indepedent.

Ref 11 [25] That is banruptcy notice. It is non-rs. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 12 [26] This is PR to introduce reader to the product. It is not independent either.

These references like the references are above are entirely unsuitable to pass WP:V for a WP:BLP article. WP:BIO has three criteria and this article fails all of them. WP:BLP states: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". These are not one high quality source. They are typical of a businessmen who has the money to spend on PR, press-releases along with business style interviews that are primary. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I'm following and agreeing with most of what you say above. But I take issue with the unsubstantiated statement "This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY." Profiles are sometimes written by historians, profiles are often written by journalists, profiles are sometimes written by subject matter experts. In these (and other) cases profiles absolutely can be secondary, independent, reliable sources. Thanks. — Jacona (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jacona: How goes it? In this context they will likely have been written by himself. About four to five years ago there was a document doing the rounds, that looked at profiles amongst other things of that type, Since they are so heavily used now by everybody really, and due to the quick turn around of content, they looked at them and why they exploded in use. The outcome for me, was that often the person involved would be requested to send a wee short bio to give the reader to something to chew on. The clear takeaway was they were primary, because the organisational entity doesn't necessarily know that much about the person, so they request a profile. It is an industry wide pattern. There may be case that historians, journalists and subject matter experts create them as well, and that something that needs taken cognizance of, but not in this context. If it a businessman article, I wouldn't trust in the fact it wasn't written by themselves or the PR agency. The are primary here. scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Time article has significant content prior to the interview. The New Yorker article is definitely an RS. I think it's a bit weak, as so many of the sources are about his company rather than him, but those two articles give bio information so they are at least in part about him. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think I can add much to the analysis based on the BASIC criteria. "Often interviewed due to their (co-)founding of MoviePass" is not really something we can used to establish notability. I think Moonswimer does point towards some of the additional criteria (though really, they are not making that at all clear with the seeming to go for quantity of references instead) so we should probably take a look at that as a "holistic approach", so to speak. I see two possible avenues through those criteria we may want to evaluate against, WP:ANYBIO #2 and WP:PRODUCER (any, but most likely #3 or #4). In evaluating against the former (widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field) in the absence of an independent RS specifically saying so, I imagine we would need to evaluate the enduring notability of the founded company, MoviePass. Merely being described as "innovative", "disruptive" or "revolutionary" does not seem sufficent, as it does happen to quite a substantial number of companies that ultimately do not make a long term impact. For WP:PRODUCER, I do not see significant evidence for significant or well-known work or collective body of work. While the subject is credited as (co-?)producer on a number of films, it does not appear those films are particularly well known. Finally, the point of the film festival. I don't believe the "Made in NY Award" is regarded as a well-known and significant award or honor, but I admit I could be wrong: I can't find much about it. It is also not entirely clear if the fact that it is renowned is explicitly stated in secondary (and independent of course) sources, Gothamist does say it's "one of" the longest running, but that does not appear sufficient to create a claim under any of the additional criteria. I would say the best option open to us for now is to redirect to MoviePass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going for "quantity of references" to establish notability. Most of the references I linked to were simply to back up my claims and provide extra context, especially regarding the signifiance of the company, the festival, and the award. For references contributing to notability, I'd consider: 1, 2, 3, 4

MoviePass has already been extensively covered and many articles delve into the company's lasting influence on the movie business (How MoviePass Has Changed Ticket Buying, Even If MoviePass Dies, It Changed Moviegoing for Good, The rise and fall of MoviePass: how 'Netflix for cinemas' fell apart, Graham: MoviePass, on its last legs, made a big impact, MoviePass: The 'Get Big Fast' Strategy).

Regarding the award, It was created and is presented by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment and is a category at the Gotham Awards (which has been described as "the traditional kickoff to awards season"). The award honors "individuals and organizations that have made what are deemed significant contributions to the city’s entertainment and digital-media industries." There is a decent amount of coverage on it. In this article by the The Hollywood Reporter, it is described as "prestigious". The festival itself (described as "the largest international competitive specialized fest of its kind" and "the largest film confab devoted to minority fare") has also received plenty of coverage in publications such as Variety, Deadline, and The New York Times. Mooonswimmer 13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't rely on the award to prove notability. If doesn't have an article and is handed out more than once a year, so I don't see it as particularly prestiguous. It loooks more like a trade award. The references presented arent sufficient to satisfy WP:THREE which is considered best practice to prove notability at afd.. I've not see three genuine secondary sources proving she is notable. I'm not particularly confident that the Time article is a decent secondary source. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the Time article is published by an independent, reliable source and focuses solely on Spikes, going beyond a raw, unedited interview, and offering some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman. Why wouldn't it count?

Regarding the award, the fact that it doesn't have an article doesn't make it non-notable (same goes for the festival he created). I am familiar with both and will be creating articles for them whenever I have the time. I personally see the award as quite significant, definitely not to the level of other accolades, but enough to be considered a notable award. It celebrates individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industries. New York City is an international entertainment and digital media hub. It was created by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment. It's a category at the Gotham Awards. Its recipients are mostly highly-regarded individuals and organizations in entertainment. Reliable sources report on the recipients of the award annually. It has been described as "prestigious" by The Hollywood Reporter. To me, that's a significant, well-known award.

And again, holistic approach. So far, I've been considering multiple aspects of Spikes and his career (company, works, festival, awards, coverage) all together. Some are weaker than others but collectively they construct a compelling case, aligning with our guidelines, showcasing Spikes as a notable figure in the entertainment industry. If we are to take a more formulaic and stringent approach, I've presented what I believe are ample sources and I've argued for the enduring notability of the company he founded. Mooonswimmer 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, what has been considered well-known and significant have been awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Nobels, that kind of thing. It's a somewhat higher standard than notable by significant coverage as provided by the GNG, considerably so. I'm still dubious on the part of the enduring historical record part. Which sources would you consider the best three, if you do intend on making an argument based on BASIC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you did include 4 specific sources, I'll see if I can go through them in a bit more detail later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, It is very inappropriate to misgender someone, as you have done with Stacy Spikes. I'm hoping this was a slip, and not a deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness. If it's a slip, it causes me to question whether you did sufficient investigation before nominating this article for deletion. — Jacona (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it was a "deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness". Note that User:Scope creep used "he" and "his" pronouns in reference to Spikes above. Mooonswimmer 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mooonswimmer, thanks, I was concerned. Mistakes happen, I know I’ve made a few! — Jacona (talk) 17:01, 29 October 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.