Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Korey


 * 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 redirect to Away (company). Eddie891 Talk Work 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Steph Korey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This started out as puffery but has now become an attack article -- the best course will be to remove it entirely as not yet notable in a positive sense nor even sufficiently notorious in a negative sense.  DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The references were always atrocious and weren't sufficiently in-depth nor independent to support a BLP. We will see if the same SPA's turn up this time.   scope_creep Talk  12:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The borderline notability combined with the article either being a puff piece or a hit piece leads me to believe that no article at all is a better option. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks indepth and independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Away (company). The controversy over her social media activity, and repeated stepping-down and returning to CEO, have been covered by The Verge, The New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Vox, and Jezebel. However, the large number of NPOV and BLP issues in the article's history suggest that information may be better contained to the business article, not the person.  Kncny11  (shoot) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Away (company). Was kind of on the fence between a weak keep and redirect. I think the sources are reliable and significant but the tone is all over the place. Seems more appropriate as part of the Away page.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:33, 19 March 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.