Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Ferreira

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. Clear consensus that there is sufficient sourcing (both in and outside of the article) to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Ferreira

[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)

Wikipedia is not a linkedin of business executives, nothing notable for him, lacks indepth WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take all the “resume” point of view out of it and she has the reliable sources needed for notability, not limited to the ones currently in the article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of detailed coverage in sources like the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and MLB.com to meet GNG. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for her notable accomplishments as signified by coverage in a variety of RS. Given that the nominator failed to notice her gender, which is indeed why the coverage exists, I wonder what kind of BEFORE was done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion are enough to meet GNG. A quick Google search also turns up good sources like this, this, and this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 22 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.