Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Brandt

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. RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Brandt

[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)

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Seriously, number 39 on FORTUNE's 50 Most Powerful Women and lots of news coverage is not enough for WP:GNG? Nom has a long list of similar AfDs that need careful scrutiny, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and other such lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd put FORTUNE's 50 Most Powerful Women in that category? That's just wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly notable. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find any RS? It more looks likes a detailed version of a Linkedin profile, I cant see any signs of notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform of companies for their Business executives. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The role in the company is the source of her notability, yes. What's wrong with that? Here is a news article with significant independent coverage, for example. And here's one from 4 years earlier. She's famous. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rehashed LinkedIn profile and nobody from AOL paid me to write this for anyone. I don't even know if she knows this page exists. Not everyone making pages for executives is doing it to advertise. I genuinely wanted to know more about the person behind the infamous AOL CD carpet-bombing campaign and decided to make this page to share what I found. It is hard to find online sources from this era about marketing executives without looking through archives which may be why it comes off as a LinkedIn profile. Blueclaw (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lists of most influential x from publication y have become so ubiquitous it is time we stop paying them any heed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one measure; there are lots of news articles about her. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep multiple independent sources reference Brandt's notability eg "That genius Jan Brandt" and "Jan Brandt is a legend in the world of marketing. She singlehandedly led the famous AOL 'carpet-bombing' campaign that put millions of AOL trial discs and CDs in everything from magazines to popcorn boxes to banks." The AOL freebie campaign she started in the early 1990s is still newsworthy, even when articles about it don't mention Brandt, e.g. Smithsonian and Wired. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is more than adequate. "Not independently notable outside of her company" is like saying "not notable outside of the thing that makes her notable". XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Multiple independent sources indicate that she is indeed well-known. I started the page because I found her contributions to the early 90s internet era fascinating and I wanted to know more about her career. Surely other people find her story and contributions interesting. Blueclaw (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:RSs Thanks HouseOfChange. Wm335td (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (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.