Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruze, Rachel


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Cruze, Rachel
Note: Article was moved to Rachel Cruze. Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable author. Having several guest appearances on TV is not necessarily a strong claim to notability. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, with the sources in the article being non-independent ones. Other sources I could find online, with the exception of an interview by Mint.com, are articles about tips by her rather than about her, or as being the daughter of author Dave Ramsey. I am not against a merge to her father's article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the sources given below, I'm changing my !vote to Keep, although I'm not withdrawing this AfD and I'll let an uninvolved admin close this when the AfD has run its course. Should the article be kept, the article should probably be moved to Rachel Cruze. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Cutest</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b>Hangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — <b style="color:#D60047">C</b><b style="color:#F0A000">ute</b><b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b>Hangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't find any reliable sources, and the ones on the article are all non-RS. Note, though, that this article was created today. We could userfy it and ask the creator to take it through AfC. I say this because I see that the person is creating other articles, and I they have similar sourcing problems. At AfC the editor may get better instruction about sourcing. (And naming of articles, since "Cruze comma Rachel" is obviously not how it's done on WP). LaMona (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree about changing article title to Rachel Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability, neither WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR is met. I don't see how sending it to AfC could change the basic lack of notability. I'm always wary of articles that appear to be commissioned to advertise the subject of the article and increase their notability, rather than document existing notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Numerous references here and here and here and here and here and here. An author of a NY Times bestseller clearly meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the SFGate interview since to be reliable. The remaining sources, as I mentioned above, are more about her father, or about information by Cruze and not Cruze herself. Still, it's interesting to see that she's a NY Times bestseller, and I have no idea how I missed that information during my searches. I can't withdraw the AfD now though, since there are already two delete !votes above, so this AfD has to run its course. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw your nomination in light of new information. I have AfD-ed articles only to find article defenders coming up with sources I did not know about, or guidelines that I did not know. Just write "nomination withdrawn" and let the closing admin decide. Flexibility is the essence of being open-minded, something I admire in Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, based on my experiences (this includes occasionally making non-admin closures on AfDs), generally, even if the nominator withdraws a nomination or changes their !vote to Keep, sysops tend to keep AfDs open. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, GNG is about significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and having (co-)authored a book that was on the NYT list of bestselling advice books for a few weeks does not automatically mean that a person meets GNG, nor WP:AUTHOR - it means that they are good at marketing, which we already knew, and if they still don't appear in multiple independent sources, there still isn't sufficient notability. I'm afraid my !vote stands. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , the guideline says The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique and Cruze and her father originated the idea of not paying allowances to children, to pay them by commission, as it says here, an article in the Chicago Tribune which is prominently about Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think it would depend more on how Cruze contributed to books. If, for example, she is listed as a co-author but the primary author is her father, then that may instead strengthen the father's notability. From what it looks, Cruze mainly seems to be known for, for a lack of a better term, assisting her father in the latter's views. And remember that notability is inherited so the discussion should focus on whether or not Cruze is notable on her own. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, Cruze appears to be an equal partner with her father in promoting financial literacy; earlier of course her father may have had the dominant role, but clearly now, at 25, Cruze is held as an authority. There are further instances in which Cruze, herself and alone, is cited as an authority on various financial matters, such as here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As tempted as I am to change my !vote (despite being the nominator), the article only seems to confirm my thoughts in my nomination: that most of the sources regarding her online are about statements by her, and not statements about her. If there are more sources that are actually about her then maybe things would be different. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So this article is not much Cruze but all Ramsey -- is that what you're saying? Sure seems to me to focus pretty much on Cruze, maybe 80% of the text.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Or what about this source -- seems pretty much like all Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that settles it then. I'm changing my !vote accordingly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I admire folks such as yourself who can change their minds. After all, I've been there done that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And where's the reliably sourced evidence that "not paying allowances to children" is a notable concept that's taken root as a thing that's meaningfully discussed by sources other than her? That criterion doesn't give a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage to every single person who ever had an original thought — it still requires RSes to document that their idea has meaningful currency in public discourse. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, having read the article it appears as if the co-authored book Smart Money, Smart Kids may be notable but Cruze possibly isn't. Having appeared on a number of tv shows is what a lot of writers of books that become a no. 1 nytimes bestseller usually do (doing the talk show circuit,) that doesn't make them notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What? The book did not make speeches or get interviewed by reporters.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Making speeches and getting interviewed by reporters don't count for anything toward whether a person passes WP:GNG or not. A person gets over GNG by having other people talk or write about them in reliable sources, and not by talking or writing about themselves. An interview is permissible for verification of facts after the notability has already been covered off by other sources — but if the interview subject's basic notability is still in question, then the interview doesn't contribute anything toward resolving that. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cruze is regarded as an authority on personal finance, which is why she has been extensively quoted, and there are articles here and here which clearly focus on her and her crusade for greater financial literacy and sensible spending habits. What more do you need? Do you want in-depth discussion on Cruze's personal stuff, like where she lives, what she eats, her family relations (although her story about growing up 'Ramsey' is interesting, arguably)? This does not make sense. Rather, what is interesting is her views on personal finance. And here she's had a major impact. For me, that's a better way to assess notability -- impact -- clearly Cruze has advanced public discussion on saving, substituting debit cards for credit cards, budgeting, no allowances for children, buying houses, etc. Like, if you had to list the nation's top seven authorities on personal finance, especially as it relates to families, Cruze would be on that list. Clearly she's notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't see that the Chicago Tribune article makes the claim that Cruze or her parents invented the concept of making children earn money rather than giving them an allowance - which would have been a very peculiar claim, since it's not a new idea at all. None of the concepts mentioned in the article originated with Ramsey or Cruze, and they are not credited as the inventors, either. They are simply the authors of a book discussing ideas that have been around for a long time. (See, for instance, this survey from 2012, two years before the Ramsey-Cruze book was published, which states that "The vast majority of parents [in the United States] do require their children to earn their allowance.") --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but Cruze has popularized the parental strategy of not giving allowances without work being done. Remember, as contributors to Wikipedia, it is not our job to rethink the decisions of editors and newspapers and magazines, who clearly agree that Cruze is notable enough to write about her, quote her, do in-depth reporting on her, consider her as an authority on the subject of personal finance; there are 12 references in the article as of August 17 2015. Nor should we second-guess the public when by its purchases, it brings a book to the top of the NY Times bestseller list. Rather, we should defer to the community's guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. And that is the case here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources in article sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Chicago Tribune article especially, it is a reliable source that was written about her. Yes, it talks extensively about her book and quotes her extensively, but it's far from a self-published source, or a book review.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the guideline, seems to be rather widely recognized as a financial expert, and has written a New York Times bestseller. She therefore quite plainly passes the WP:GNG. -- Biblioworm  (talk)  21:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG; multiple independent, reliable sources discuss her, so there is no issue with notability. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (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.