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 as this seems clear enough to not continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Blum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of significant notability; fails WP:GNG. NOTE: Editors may wish to also review previous versions; recent rollback due to copyvio concerns. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of soft news and talk shows does not strike me as encyclopedia-worthy. To borrow a name from her client list, Billy Joel has no doubt appeared on many similar infotainment programs, but we don't list them in his biography because they aren't why Joel is notable. They aren't defining, they're just part of celebrity. Similarly, rather than speling out every publication that has run an article to which she contributed, summarize the topics she has written about and type of publications (e.g. bridal, lifestyle) she has written for, unless she was a regular columnist for one or more of them. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2016 (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.