Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Ralph (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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ralph[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from employer. Has not improved since previous nom Yogiile (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Kingdom, Women, Fashion, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus in the last discussion was keep. The fact that the article has not improved is not a reason for deletion: what has changed to make the subject no longer notable? St Anselm (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: In fact, there is lots of significant press coverage of Ralph from 2021. WP:BEFORE has clearly not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By a Googling you can find significant coverage about her from reliable independent sources such as New York Times and others. Ahmed ^(talk) 22:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are ample WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources satisfy WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2022 (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.