Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Rockefeller

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. Has enough coverage of herself personally to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Rockefeller

[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)

Lack of notability. Users who have removed notability concerns in the past have since been banned. Hypererleas (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while if you leverage inherited wealth to do notable things you can become notable, Ms Rockefeller has not yet done so so is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she is notable enough. There is plenty of press on her, quite a bit that isn't trivial. Each of her ventures may not be notable enough but together they certainly help her pass GNG. Plenty of good sources too. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the obvious paid editing - because the sources are significant enough. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in major news media as a fashion designer and equestrian rider, even though we understand being an heiress of the Rockefellers is where it all begins. That alone wouldn't cut it, especially without sigcov, but the coverage seems to be about the additional reasons. StonyBrook (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Rockefeller dynasty members are notable enough, but we will need to clean up the messy PR look of the article and make it more neutral. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:02, 6 October 2019 (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.