Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodan + Fields (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Nakon 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodan + Fields[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous afd closed as no consensus. I consider the firm non-notable: the refs are pure PR; the awards are minor & local (e.g. "third largest SF-based women-owned") . This is basically an advertisement for a direct marketing company. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not obviously pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In the last AFD the Forbes article was mentioned as a good source, and Forbes is a fine publication, but the Forbes article is a case study about a business strategy that happened to be used by this organization, and I would argue is less about the nature of this organization itself. The article certainly does not present this organization as being significant mostly as a model for finance practices. The other sources are mostly not about this organization. I expect articles to be apparent in meeting Wikipedia's standards and this one has too much promotional content to have anything which can be saved apparent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references just aren't there. We have a Forbes column - not by Forbes staff but by a "contributor", as in "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." We have a newspaper interview with the founders when they were in town for a convention. Nothing much else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2015 (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.