Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aileen Lee

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 no consensus. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Lee (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)

Contested PROD about a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are enough references to establish notability. Though no awards or achievements have been described her activities and opinions seemed to have attracted non-primary source attention.  Bfpage |leave a message  19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Off-topic Comment The nominator has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. He does little else other than reverting and nominating my edits for deletion. For a recent example see my comments in a previous nomination “discussion". I have been complaining about this behavior for months, but it seems that on Wikipedia the victim is automatically at fault. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you strike that comment. Not only are you off-topic, you are casting aspersions on another editor, and have done this multiple times. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm leaning to delete at the moment, but this is a very borderline case, hence the appropriateness of bringing this to AfD.

Of the 7 references currently in the article, [1] is written by the subject herself, [2] is more a less a summary of the article by the subject, [3] is clearly press release based, about another person and company, and mentions the subject only in passing, [4] is a profile from a site with user-generated content, [5] is a brief "interview" with the subject about her view of another company, [6] and [7] are from TechCrunch (as are [1] and [3]) and are connected with publicizing the launch of her new company. Incidentally, TechCrunch is owned by AOL, which had a heavy investment by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, for whom the subject still works. Note also that "founding CEO" of RMG Networks means she was the first CEO but not necessarily the founder of the company, and she had left RMG four years before it became a publicly traded company.

I have found nothing which covers the subject herself in any kind of depth. Thus she arguably does not pass WP:GNG, and she clearly does not pass the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO. One of the major problems with assessing articles about businesses and business people is that they are all seasoned users of the public relations industry who can generate coverage, out of all proportion to the importance or long-lasting significance of the subject, especially in the case of start-ups and venture capital. I suggest reading "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR" from the Columbia Journalism Review for caveats that all editors of business-related articles should be aware of. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment: It's possible she's notable for reasons the article doesn't make clear. The WSJ apparently finds female VCs interesting enough to write about. How rare are they? How rare are female VCs who start their own firms? If she's breaking new ground, the article should say so up front. Right now the article suggests she's just another respected businessperson who occasionally gets mentioned briefly in articles along with a bunch of other people. --Rosekelleher (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very good question. According to Reuters [1], 6% of all partners in all VC firms globally are women—a small percentage, but not a small number, given the number of VC firms. As an example, Lee was previously a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which alone has about 10 women partners (junior and senior). See also this list of 105 women venture capitalists, although largely confined to the US. There are already several VC firms started by women which are dedicated solely to funding start-ups by women entrepreneurs. As far`as I can see, Lee's new firm, Cowboy Ventures, is not one of those. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. She is undeniably successful as an individual, but notability is another thing, and she is not that. I tried to find an article she could be merged to, but none seem apropos. As an editor above enumerated, the citations in the article are all borderline and weak except for the TechCrunch one. This passage made me think that it is too soon for her to have her own page, if ever:

It’s generally too early to tell how those bets will ultimately play out, although a few of those companies have already moved on to successfully raise Series A rounds.Lee declined to comment for this story, but after two-and-a-half years, she and Lichtenstein are apparently now ready to raise a new fund. While the SEC filing shows they are seeking slightly more capital to work with for Cowboy Ventures Fund II, at $55 million, the amount is consistent with the same type of early-stage investments.

$55million isn't that much money in the venture capital world (I don't think?), and the company's impact remains unproven.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Tech Crunch articles ([2][3]) suggest that the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She also seems to be mentioned regularly in major press outlets, even outside of the many mentions she gets in articles about Ellen Pao. Last week Lee's firm was one of the subjects of a New York Times DealBook article where she was quoted. A week before that, her unicorn club article was mentioned in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:04, 6 April 2015 (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.