Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rubio

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. There is also a consensus that the articles needs to be edited for neutrality. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rubio[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)

Highly promotional. References more about the company. Created by a blocked user. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on Rubio, Weak Keep on Korey - Granted these may be promotional and/or paid, but the chief standard to follow in these discussions is WP:NOTABILITY. These two women are chief executives of what's a clearly notable business. Korey seems to have some direct coverage in reasonably high-quality RS, and both women appear to have slew of mentions in RS. Frankly I think they may pass the bar for WP:GNG. Scope is right that these articles clearly have issues, but I'm not sure deletion is the solution. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Both articles include the requisite reliable and verifiable references supporting the claim of notability for both individuals as founders of Away, one of the largest such startups founded by women. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources certainly check out but the article as a whole needs cleanup as it's promotional in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks as though it is verging towards keep for both of them. I will give it another day, and if somebody turns up without being canvanssed, I'll withdraw it, for keep. scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on both. I think there is enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability for both. There are quite a few non-independent sources too, which could perhaps be removed to make it clearer that they meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2018 (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.