Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Deming

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. Geschichte (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Deming

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another person with a job article that does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. She's been profiled a few times as an investor, and that's really it. At best, WP:TOOSOON. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At Wikipedia, we could wait until a person is dead and then start with their obituaries, covering their entire life. We wouldn't have BLP problems then but the subject here might upset such a scheme, eh? She gets plenty of coverage in sources such as the FT and Sunday Times and it's not just about money. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Per cited WP:BIO lead, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note'—that is, remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. Woman venture capitalist marks all of those. Forbes ref Hmlarson (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Handily passes GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have enough independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG; sufficient independent sources covering her achievements. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed and I think we now have consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.