Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Stewart


 * 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! 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Camille Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Refs are mix of profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLPPRIMARY.  scope_creep Talk  00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep - I have started adding in coverage of her work, which is quite widespread. The article in Bloomberg (which is not a profile, but an article on privacy and data security) provides WP:SIGCOV. She is also frequently cited by the Washington Post on cybersecurity, and her job transitions are covered by Politico. She has also received multiple awards that are now provided on her page (with citations). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work on updating the article, although the quotes in the references are deeply uncool and will need formatted properly at some point, if the article survives. It may survive yet. The Bloomberg reference is semi-decent but is covers five companies and would count only as a basic reference. The awards are non-notable. They are corporate awards and are junk. The Politico references I'll check them; they may be better.   scope_creep Talk  17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to cause problems with the quotes. Is the problem the existence of the quotes, or the formatting of the quotes? I thought it would be helpful to have the information in case people cannot access the sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a simple fix. No worries. Forget about it. I'll fix it, if the article survives.   scope_creep Talk  19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Change from comment --> keep; I added in a few more citations, but minor pieces compared to my earlier additions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it has significant coverage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The sources confirm that she has held high-level positions in her field. There are enough sources that focus on her to meet NBIO. Lamona (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.