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. Michig (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All sources are media outlets making announcements about their own employee. There is no independent reporting about the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Unfortunately I agree with the nominator, but it is clear that Nellie Bowles is a sharp reporter and top journalist, so it would be great if we could find a way to keep her in Wikipedia. Problem is, the sources are all by her and not about her, which won't pass muster by the wikirules, but in time, there may be coverage of her as a journalist, and this subject can be re-floated then. If, at a future time, there is coverage, please write something on my talk page and I'll perform a wiki-resurrection if this article is deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Updating found an in-depth source here. Changing to weak delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Plus she's a Fulbright scholar as shown here. Plus she's quoted here. I'm changing to Weak keep. I'm just thinking there must be sources out there but it's a real slog wading through all the bylined stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Like this one is about her (although from her then-future employer).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Hey she's had two hopefully grope-free appearances on Charlie Rose, changing to Keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Addendum -- another source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable on-air journalist covering hi-tech; Fulbright award; been on Charlie Rose twice. Problem is, most sources are by her and not about her, but I think there are enough in the media-on-media world to pass her on the general notability guideline. They include: this profile, profile here, another one here, profile, profile here, and here. Most are hiring announcements by her employers so do they count as references? Still, her journalism credentials are impeccable and with her on-air work, she's increasingly a major player in the Silicon Valley hi-tech world. Article upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN. Kind of a weak keep, but a keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above there is coverage by her and from her employers but no coverage of her. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources found such as Dame magazine discussing Bowles' reporting at length.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Thanks Tomwsulcer. Hmlarson (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to have received significant coverage in secondary sources, including discussion about her work and the impact it's had on Silicon Valley^[1] and cryptocurrencies.^[2] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- appears to be somewhat notable as a high-tech reporter, although the case for notability is a weak one. Sources above help though. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2018 (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.