Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Romer Carlson


 * 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Romer Carlson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:COATRACK article on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Generally, an individual is notable when they satisfy our notability threshold or peculiar SNG & not by their proximity to seemingly notable entities/persons. Notability isn’t a birthright or WP:NOTINHERITED. A before search showed me this, which is overtly unreliable, this, which is overtly unreliable also & hits in numerous sponsored posts. In summary, there isn’t a single source that I can observe which discusses her with in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much this is related to New Hampshire or Florida. Is there a discussion for American businesswomen? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Rachel Romer Carlson is the founder and CEO of a female-led company that is valued at $1 billion or more. How many women have this accomplishment? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That´s the company. You are writing an article about a person, a biography.  What is your biographical source material?  And why does this article contain only 3 sentences that are actually about its subject, the person?  Where is anything else about the person going to come from?  Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's three sentences out of eight sentences total. She's 33 years old and is the founder and leader of a billion dollar corporation.  How many people have biographies at 33 years of age, other than professional athletes and entertainers? Should I include information about her twin daughters or her marriage ceremonies which were officiated by David Brooks (commentator)? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * She is a co-founder, & not founder that isn’t my point anyway, she fails to satisfy any of our notability criteria for inclusion, you can of course prove me wrong my providing us with RS that proves the contrary. Your point about her being 33 & cofounding an organization is irrelevant. Furthermore the article mainly discusses the organization & not subject of the article per se. In your opinion what notability criteria does she meet? Clearly you shouldn’t be creating articles directly to mainspace. Perhaps use the AFC method of submission instead. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. She is the co-founder and CEO and her name is synonymous with Guild Education. Maybe you can help me get through the paywall? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remember to make an attempt at civility. Suggesting AFC is fine, suggesting that an editor shouldn't be creating articles is...not very civil or constructive. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple Google search returns multiple RS, for example a cover article in Forbes (and yes, by a staff writer, not a blogger, so RS) and an article from Stanford Graduate School of Business (although it is something of a "look at what our alumni are doing" article). Her wedding appears to have been covered by the New York Times, for what it is worth.  Additionally, as the cofounder and CEO of a company with a billion dollar market cap, one would expect to find further RS because simply having that position tends to generate coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — @, you do realize that in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS is required by GNG for GNG to be met? The forbes source isn’t bad, but one source isn’t sufficient for GNG to be met. A biographical article needs at least WP:3REFS so by all means, please do provide to this AFD, any of the three(just three) of the multiple RS you claim to have discovered, if you can’t, then I’m afraid your keep !vote is invalid. The article in itself as well as a host of other sources I observed make reference to the organization and not the subject herself hence WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. The whole article is a coatrack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, that "three sources" "rule" is an essay, it is NOT Wikipedia policy. Second, you do NOT get to say that my keep vote is "invalid", that is once again uncivil.  The Forbes article in and of itself goes a long way towards establishing notability.  The MoneyInc article itself may not be from a RS, but it does contain some interesting biographical information that could probably be found in better sources.  A link to a Fortune article was placed, but it is nehind a paywall so I cannot assess it, I merely note that another editor claims that it contains significant coverage (remember, AGF).
 * There is another article and interview at InfoQ although I am not familiar with that source. However, that article notes that she was the keynote speaker at a conference called Develop Denver 2019, the Develop Denver website confirms that it is a real thing, but I cannot immediately find the notes of her actual keynote speech on that website.
 * In searching for that speech, I instead came across This article in the Colorado Sun about the subject. The article is also about the company she founded, yes, but it is primarily about Carlson and her role, a significant number of paragraphs actually start with her name, for example. This strikes me as a highly valid reliable source with significan coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete while there is valid points from Hyperion35, I'm going to air on the side of delete here because it does appear that the article and her notability stems more from the company than independent notability. In my view, she's borderline, and I'm of the belief that encyclopedic topics either pass notability or they don't. I think WP:TOOSOON is applicable here. If anyone finds anything additional I'd be willing to change my vote, but I didn't just find enough online to merit keep. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The coverage that I am finding, such as that Colorado Sun article, tends to focus more on Carlson's role in founding the company than the company itself. In many of these cases, it can be hard to separate the two.  There is certainky far more coverage of Apple than of Steve Jobs.  And way more coverage of Franz Ferdinand than Gavrilo Princip.  And yet both of those individuals have significant independent notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not in disagreement with you that she has a bright future, and that a $1 billion dollar company valuation is impressive. Personally, I think it's impressive. However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks that what someone is doing is impressive doesn't necessitate inclusion into the encyclopedia. Opinions aside, the facts are: 1) There isn't enough independent, reliable sources about her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Colorado Sun article that you mentioned is a local newspaper, not a mainstream newspaper. Not gonna work. See WP:SOURCES. The Stanford blog post is where she went to school. Can neutrality apply there? I don't think it can. The institution has a vested interest in presenting to the public that they have successful alumni. See WP:ORGIND: any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly are considered dependent sources. Dependent sources don't count towards independent sources. 2) Just because Steve Jobs or other business people have an article, doesn't mean that all founders of highly valued companies, or any companies at all for that matter, should get an article. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE. 3) The debate that you and Celestina007 are having pertaining to WP:3REFS is the bare minimum for encyclopedic inclusion. Even IF the topic had 3 independent sources, it doesn't mean that a bell tolls, and the article is automatically accepted into Wikipedia, no questions asked. Other factors come into play. The basis of your argument is that there is "just enough", and I don't even think there's that. My vote is firmly planted on delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three references is, once again, not Wikipedia policy or a guideline. It is an essay by one user.  Please see WP:NEXIST.  The standard is the existence or even likely existence of sources.  I believe that you have also misunderstood what I meant about Jobs, I meant that most of the articles about him will also be about his company.  I do believe that it is possible to agree to disagree, but I do find misunderstandings disheartening. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, what is the objection to the Colorado Sun? It does not appear to be a local newspaper, amd I am confused about the statement that it is not a mainstream news source. Perhaps you can add citations on that to our Wikipedia page about the Sun? Hyperion35 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a mainstream newspaper like the Wall Street Journal for example. I have given my vote and reasons above per Wikipedia policy and for no other reason. However, it's clear that it's very, very important to you that she stays. Let's let the rest of the community have their vote and respect them, whatever they may be. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep the worst nomination I have seen today. Subject meets WP:GNG. There is an in-depth Forbes article about her from a Staff Writer, which unlike contributing writers, is an acceptable format. There are also CNBC and New York times articles. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete subject does not meet any reading of GNG that emphasizes the coverage has to be significantly about the person in question. This is not the 1990s, $1 billion is just not what it used to be, and a company valued over $1 billion does not automatically make its head notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I have revised the article and added sources, including a reference to a regional EY award in 2020, and created this source assessment table, which does not include the NYT opinion article co-authored by Carlson nor the CNBC source about Guild:
 * My !vote is based on the results of my research and the sources assessed above, but there is also WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which states, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and several of the more robust sources are included in the Guild Education article, and relevant information could potentially be added to the History and/or Leadership section of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I have updated my !vote to delete after further consideration of the sources as well as the recent comment by Celestina007. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My !vote is based on the results of my research and the sources assessed above, but there is also WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which states, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and several of the more robust sources are included in the Guild Education article, and relevant information could potentially be added to the History and/or Leadership section of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I have updated my !vote to delete after further consideration of the sources as well as the recent comment by Celestina007. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This Forbes article appears to be a full length feature, possibly a cover story, specifically about Rachel Romer Carlson. I do not know whether it affects your vote, but I believe that it should be included in a list of sources. It os clearly non-trivial significant coverage of the subject herself. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I should not post comments while watching baseball. I apologize, this article was right at the top of the list. Mea culpa. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is leaning towards a keep consensus but relisting in an attempt to see if a firmer consensus can be found.
 * Comment — I follow a, philosophy when engaging in AFD's which is, make your point, add perhaps two more points/arguments and then back off & let the community handle the rest. My thought is this is the archetypal example of WP:TOOSOON. She definitely has a bright future ahead of her & would invariably get an article on her retained on mainspace but im afraid now is not that time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least redirect to her company page. Riteboke (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are solid !votes to "keep" or to "delete", more discussion might lead to a more satisfying close than "no consensus".

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no policy based argument in Wikipedia that if a person is a CEO of a large company, then they must be notable. There is no coverage with a thought. Fails WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  17:03, 5 May 2021 (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.