Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodan + Fields


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rodan + Fields

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional and non-notable  DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (talk)  @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (articulate)  @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Size of company almost $200 million sales, and it being documented 3rd largest women-owned business in some area, etc., per sources in article, suffice for notability IMO.  Relationship to Proactiv, developed earlier by Dr. Katie Rodan and Dr. Kathy Fields, should be further clarified. -- do  ncr  am  01:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   02:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED: just because the principals also invented Proactiv, does not make this company notable. I'd like to see much better sourcing and less peacock language before I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While WP:peacock language is grounds for a tag, it is not so for deletion unless the article is blatant WP:SPAM.  This article is promotional in some aspects in tone, but not completely free of content.  There are not a ton of sources, but a cover story in an industry magazine (Direct Selling News) and an article in Forbes are a start.  Company did $200M sales and has a network of 50K "consultant"/salespeople. That is enough for WP:CORP. Gaff (talk) 05:13, 14 January 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.