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 delete. I find DGG's comments the most persuasive, and sufficiently supported by others. Daniel (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tammarrian Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

mnon notable and promotional, based on PR sources. Forbes 50 top anything isa promotional gimmick like all similar lists, and to write wikipedia articles on the basis of being listed there is naïve.

Ref 1, barely mentions her in a general article. Ref 2 is Forbes promoting its own lists, Ref .3 is a one paragraph highly promotional quote, but worth reading to see what people will say of themselves. Ref 4. is an interview where she says whatever she wants to in response to leading questions --and there's an advertising tie in--her firm is listing its jobs on the site. 5 & 6 I cannot see., but from the titles 5 is a promotional interview, and 6 is trivial.. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per analysis of sources above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Veryw weak keep I put this up for deletion the first time, but I think we are JUST over the hump now - mostly based on the addition of ref 5, which is here. That's actually a reasonably in-depth profile. Ref 6 is here and apparently largely paywalled - unclear how much substance it adds. The rest is admittedly fluff and passing mentions. I think this is in discretionary range now, possible just on the okay side. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elmidae and 5. This has more. 6 doesn't add much: "Tammarrian Rogers, a software engineering director for Snap, the camera and social media company, ... spoke at a webinar titled “Finding, Recruiting and Retaining the Right Talent,” presented by InsurTech Indenseo in April. Rogers, who worked at Microsoft for 23 years prior to leading several engineering teams at Snap, said that young people with technology skills need to find a meaningful connection to what they’re working on..." but 5 is great. Being a sought-after panelist [1][2][3] supports NCREATIVE 1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now that I can see #5, it's a typical Lifestyle section article in a newspaper, relying almost entirely on what she says about herself, supplemented by some very uncritical puffery. And I remind everyone that placement of a 50 under 50 list or the like is merely a promotional device--and everything said in such articles should be considered unreliable, being almost entirely derived from the person themselves, of their press agent's promotional puffery. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly insufficient references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2021 (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.