Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Alexander (businesswoman)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Nominator struck his own nomination and !voted for keep. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Alexander (businesswoman)

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

I have had a look at some sources that are available and I'm interested to see what people's thoughts are.

  • New York Times - easily the most significant coverage on this person currently
  • W Week - the article is focused on Alexander but the article almost entirely piggy backs off the NY Times one
  • Yes - describes one of her projects as "the first free, exclusively plus-size stock photo library" so a possible claim to notability there
  • Fast Company - not sig cov
  • Auto Straddle - seems to be a promotional/paid for article
  • Katu - very brief

If people are not in favour of deletion then it might be worth considering moving the article to AllGo as Alexander doesn't appear to be notable for anything other than the app that she has created. She appears to fail

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, moving to AllGo wouldn't quite make sense as she's also known for the stock-photo project and the sources are really more about her than her projects. Passes SIGCOV. The article does need to be improved to demonstrate that notability though. --Paultalk13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with both @Paul Carpenter and Bearian: points, I would also add that there are significant amount of other sources that could be added to the article. It just needs to be rewritten and put a stub label on it, which I included below. It also passes notability guidelines, because there are independent reviews of the book she authored. - Juju (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sources


Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Williamette Week Portlander Who Founded App Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY The article is primarily about Rebecca
Bitch Media - Rebecca Alexander Interview Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Feminist magazine interviewing subject
CBS Local - Catering to Plus Size Diners Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Broadcasted locally and print coverage
Oregon Live Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Broadcasted locally and print coverage
She media Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY another profile piece
Total qualifying sources 5
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Spiderone, Since you are the nominator here so I am closing this AfD. --KartikeyaS (talk) 18:20, 5 November 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.