Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Coleman


 * 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Coleman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Primary refs only, no non-promotional reliable source coverage. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - there seems to also be a major financial conflict of interest issue with the creator of this article, as their user page indicates they work with the article subject. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's neither here nor there... Carrite (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too soon, etc. Carrite (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. So far as I can tell, none of the positions she has held confers automatic notability; for example, I see no indication that she held a named chair at London University. I searched for sources and found no independent coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Head of a major foundation is the sort of thing that seems likely to cause her to become notable through WP:GNG eventually, but she's CTO, not CEO. And, so soon after her appointment, she doesn't seem to have yet received the press coverage that would be needed for GNG, and notability is not automatic for this position. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has no useful content.  Redirect to Wikimedia_Foundation where we should really have more information about the 200+ nerds who figured out a way to get some money from this project.  I just do it because it makes my match.com profile stand out.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of press coverage to come. --Deansfa (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That may or may not happen, but it is WP:SPECULATION and thus not a valid case to make in AFD.  So for now it's a delete.  When and If there is lots of non-promotional significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then anyone may go to WP:DRV and make the case for re-creation.  Hopefully this time from someone not financially connected to the subject.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to believe. --Deansfa (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2016 (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.