Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Rodan

Katie Rodan

Katie Rodan (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)

Very highly promotional article, for a person of very slight notability. No notability by WP:PROF -- none of the work is significantly cited. Nor is a position of Adjuct Clinical Assistant Professor notable--it's about as low in the medical school hierarchy as one can get. No notability independent of the company or the product (I'd suggest the one necessary article be that of the product). The promotionalism is shown by: 1/ over personal material--nobody reading an encyclopedia would care who her brother might be, Nor is there any encyclopedic interest in her childhood attempt to sell a home--made rabbit fur purse. Nor on the fact that she had bad skin as a teenager, leading to an interest in cosmetics. This sort of trivia -- -trivia that furthermore can have no independent source except what she chooses to say to people about her motivations-- is the essence of promotional press releases. 2/ Emphasis upon her motivations to develop the company then and later--again, this is just her promoting herself as she pleases, wherever it may have been reprinted. That other publications will reprint such stuff shows their irresponsibility; WP does not have to add to it. 3/adjectives of praise throughout: "novel", for example,being used for a medical treatment based upon unacceptable non-MEDRS compliant sources--in particular a claim of success in treatment based on SFgate. Other examples: "more personalized and consultative sales approach" 4/ exaggeration based upon biased use of titles of sources: she's not America's richest self made women, which would be notable if proven by a reliable historical sources, but #42 (out of the 50 on a Forbes list). (and see also the material already deleted from the article by Doc James and Dirroli.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as this is still questionable as stated and I would've also nominated it myself and my searches found nothing but expected mentions at Books and News, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is oozing with promotionalsim right now, but the woman is clearly notable for being one of the inventors of Proactiv, an extremely well known and highly publicized acne product. She's no different than Post-it notes inventor Spencer Silver, Gatorade inventor Robert Cade, or anyone else who invented a very famous product. There's enough meat on the bones to have an acceptable little article once the spammy language and unimportant details are eliminated. By the way, I disagree when DGG when they say "nobody reading an encyclopedia would care who her brother might be". Actually, he's a federal judge, as is her father, and they both have Wikipedia articles. But even if they weren't notable, so what? An endless number of biographies includes basic employment information about the parents in the early life section, and mention their siblings (including their employment if they're notable). So, yes, the overtly promotional language needs to be removed, but there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Dirroli (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - I originally supported keeping the article, but I just did a search for coverage focused solely on Rodan in reliable sources and couldn't find much. She was featured in Forbes last year,[1] but there's very little of significance beyond that. The vast majority of coverage I found was about Rodan and Fields (combined) and always focused Proactiv, not them. I also learned that Rodan and Fields aren't even the owners of Proactive; Guthy-Renker and Nestlé are.[2] On the surface, it was originaly hard to believe that a person who invented a product as famous as Proactiv isn't enyclopedically notable. But based on this new information, I am fine with DGG closing this AfD and restoring the speedy deletion template if that's what he/she would like to do. Dirroli (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete When sources describing someone as a "best doctor" is used it is nearly always spam.[3] I received an invite to be a "best doctor" a while ago and looked into it. You as the doctor basically pay for different levels of promotion. I have a felling that certain levels include a Wikipedia article but do not have proof for that last bit yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. You wanted some proof. Well, the article was created by user "Slestrella". Googling the name Estrella along with Katie Rodan will lead you right to the promoter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I am probably wrong. It seems that if you google Katie Rodan and pretty much any name, you get a "consultant" who promotes/sells this stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked Slestrella, below, if they have a personal or professional connection to Rodan (friend, relative, colleague, PR person, Procativ salesperson, etc.), but they haven't answered. The determination of whether Rodan is notable or not will have to stand on its own merits, but it sure seems like it was written by someone who was asked or paid to do it. I don't know what the rules are on that, but I hope Slestrella will explain their connection, if any, to Rodan. Dirroli (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dirroli, I'd like a response from Slestrella too. Slestrella brought it to this state before others started editing it. That looks very much like a promo piece by a paid editor to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough "meat" available in high-quality sourcing independent of the subject to hang a bio on. Some of the content could find its way into Proactiv if it's not already there, though. Zad68 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Per the reasoning of User:DGG and User:Docjames. Rodan doesn't seem to be recognized as a pioneer in dermatology though she did originate a product that was very successful in the marketplace. It appears she is no longer listed among the owners of Proactiv. If she was continuing to launch new business ventures then possibly she would be notable in the 'Forbes' sense. But our article has nothing about that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable promotion piece. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is atrociously written, but the subject is notable both for her accomplishments and coverage, like Forbes. Keep it with a "Please help" banner to get the peacock terms and puffery out. VanEman (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought the same things initially, but then I did a search for coverage about her in reliable sources and came up almost empty. Can you please provide links to any coverage from reliable sources that is focused solely on her, and not her product (Proactiv) or business (Rodan + Fields)? I listed the Forbes article (above) also as one good piece, but I could find almost nothing else of significance that was just about her as opposed to Proactiv. Dirroli (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is no more personal or promotional than other Wikipedia articles on other successful entrepreneurs and medical professionals who have started companies, invented products, or written books. In response to DGG on lack of notability: I included her role as "adjunct professor" to add academic credibility only. Her notability is as a successful female entrepreneur who has invented skincare products that transformed skincare in the area of acne (Proactiv), and now in the area of aging (Rodan + Fields). Further, on evidence of promotionalism: 1/I modeled the early life of Katie on the Wikipedia pages for Kevin Plank (founder of Under Armour) and Sara Blakely (founder of Spanx). That Kevin is "one of five brothers" and his father was a prominent land developer, or that Sara is the daughter of a trial attorney and an artist is equally personal. Based on these published examples, this article is being unfairly penalized and held to a different, arbitrary standard. 2/The public is interested in Katie as a successful female entrepreneur and the story about the rabbit fur purse, published in a medical journal, is not about her leap to skincare. It is about her history and credibility as an entrepreneur. This is no different than Kevin Plank's story about selling roses in college as his first foray into starting and running his own business. The fact that she had bad skin as a teenager is directly relevant to her motivation to focus on dermatology and skincare in the same way Kevin Plank's profuse sweating during football practice led to his search for a better fabric and the invention of UnderArmour athletic wear. 3/The word "novel" is not praise. In the context of the article it explains the shift in concentration and protocol for applying Benzoyl Peroxide to achieve sustainable acne prevention, as described in the cited references. Would the word "new" or "different" be acceptable? Regarding the treatment numbers referenced in SF Gate, that was for a focus group as stated in the article, not as evidence of clinical trials for the product, and there was no misrepresentation. 4/I did not write that the subject (Katie) was "America's Richest Self-Made Women." I stated she was one of America's Richest Self-Made Women per the Forbes article title and listed her ranking very clearly (#42), similar to Sara Blakely's ranking as the 93rd most powerful woman in Forbes. On general notability, there are 50 million people in the United States who suffer from acne, according to the American Academy of Dermatology, and 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 are affected. This is a very large constituency that is interested in this article about the successful skincare inventions of Katie Rodan, the person behind the products (Proactiv and Rodan + Fields), similar to the way Kevin Plank has a page separate from Under Armour and Sara Blakely has a page separate from Spanx. In addition, the 2012 US Census states that 36% of all businesses are owned by women (an increase of six percentage points since 2007), a second large constituency that would be interested in Katie Rodan as a successful, self-made entrepreneur. This is not motivated by a promotional campaign. It is of social interest to a very large, combined constituency that deserves this article, and being a dedicated Wikipedia user, I was surprised it was not already written. I think it's unfair to delete this article based on the subject's notability given her contributions and the public's interest in this person and topic. Regarding concerns of promotionalism, this article should be held to the same standard as pages for other entrepreneurs and skincare experts who found similar success. Citing her success as an inventor/entrepreneur/skincare expert is not promotionalism, but published evidence of her path to success, similar to the “promotional” content on the pages of other successful entrepreneurs, including Kevin Plank and Sara Blakely. slestrella 07:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Many people who have general notability in life for their successes are not "Wikipedia notable", which requires substantial coverage specifically about the person (as opposed to their product or business) in reliable sources. Can you please provide links to reliable sources (besides the Forbes piece) with coverage that is focused on Rodan herself, and not Proactiv or Rodan + Fields? Also, I see you created the Katie Rodan article. Do you have any type of personal or business/professional connection to her? Dirroli (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree with the reasoning of User:Dirroli just above. Note that as per WP:NAUTHOR the a creative person may be considered notable solely through that person's work, with little or no sourced discussion specifically of the person. Just above this the guideline says: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." The same standard should be applied to inventors, and perhaps to entrepreneurs. This seems to me to be such a case. Coverage on Rhodan's work, alone or together with Fields should be a perfectly sufficient basis to write and retain and article about her. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

But she's not notable as an author, and the "many scientists..." quote applies to academics. She's clearly not notable as an academic either. Her notability, if any, would be as an inventor (of Proactiv), but my reading of the notability standards indicates she doesn't qualify. Also, your belief that the same standard should be applied to inventors or entrepreneurs is much different than it actually being the standard. Almost all the meaningful coverage in reliable sources is about her and Fields, not her alone, so perhaps there should be an article for Rodan + Fields, rather than Rodan herself. Dirroli (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The coverage from People Magazine and Forbes show the general public and the business community are interested in her as well as the medical community. I think the article needs to be adopted by the "Women" project and "Jewish women" project to improve the writing and add the many available and reliable references. What I found is that the article uses her nickname for her first name and her married name as her last name, when some reliable references are available with her maiden name or real first name. I found more on JSTOR than what's included here. Let's keep it and improve it. Bruriyah (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What coverage in People? Please provide a link. You're not the first editor here to say that there's enough coverage of her (as opposed to Rodan + Fields or Proactiv) to qualify her as notable, so can you please provide links to what you found. I'm very open to changing my mind (again). Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dirroli Here is the reference: July 15, 2002 Vol. 58 No. 3 The article is called "Saving Face" By Galina Espinoza

Subtitle: "Developed for Adult Acne Sufferers, Kathy Fields and Katie Rodan's Proactiv Line Is An Unblemished Success" Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20137526,00.html Hope that helps. While the Wikipedia article mentions that Rodan is covered in several newspapers, magazines and journals, not all of them appear on the reference list, and I think the most important ones were left off the reference list. But I believe we shouldn't delete the article simply because the references were't added---they just need to be available. The Wright Brothers also usually get written about together and they're almost always mentioned with the airplane, but they still deserve separate article. I will try to add some to the article. Bruriyah (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bruriyah, thanks for providing that link. My concern, again, is that the story is focused heavily on Rodan + Fields and Proactiv, not Rodan herself. But at least it has some content about Rodan (and Fields) that has nothing to do with her partnership or the product. However, comparing Rodan + Fields to the Wright brothers didn't persuade me; it actually made me laugh (not kidding). If someone can show me a specific provision within WP:NOTE or WP:BIO that unquestionably qualifies Rodan as notable solely for being the co-inventor of Proactiv, then I will change my "vote" from delete to keep. Because I don't see anything else that makes her notable. Dirroli (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I was simply unable to evaluate this article with all the cruft, so I stripped it down: [4]. I know that is a little gauche to do during an AfD; apologies but it seemed necessary in this case. I am simply not seeing coverage that would meet the guideline at WP:BASIC. @Bruriyah, VanEman, and DESiegel: what three sources did you find most helpful in determining that you considered this subject notable? VQuakr (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, I don't think it hurts during this process to improve the writing in an article, and it doesn't hurt to add more references. But in the process of trying to improve the article, you apparently stripped out the names of magazines that the article claims she was in, making it more difficult for anyone looking for better references and coverage than what's already quoted. I think the article also suffers from the fact that whatever reference template the original writer used just gives you a link, but doesn't show the source's name, like Wall Street Journal, in the reference list at the bottom, so it takes a lot of work to find out where the best coverage is. Bruriyah (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bruriyah: feel free to revert; I can always link to the history if I wish to reference the de-peacocked version. That said, a list of mentions in various magazines hardly warrants inclusion anywhere in the article. To which WSJ reference are you referring? This? That one only has one sentence in it about the subject. Any progress on sharing the "top three" sources that I requested? VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think VQuakr makes an excellent point with regard to the claimed mentions in various mainstream publications. The actual sentence (before it was removed from the lede) said that Rodan has been "quoted or profiled" in numerous high-quality, mainstream publications (and then listed about a dozen of them). That claim comes across as very mysterious and euphemistic, particularly when we have no idea what comprised those quotes or profiles. Like VQuakr, I've asked supporters of keeping the article to please provide links to several sources they believe validate Rodan's notability. My concern is that there is too much rhetoric about the subject's notability, and not enough hard evidence to back it up. As I've said a few times, if the fact that she's a co-inventor of Procativ isn't enough to establish her notability, then "keep" supporters need to provide three or four links to sources that they believe do. Dirroli (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per the cogent analysis of DGG and the work done by VQuakr. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the thoughtful debate. (I am new to this forum, so please pardon my protocol for labeling my contributions to this debate.) In response to Dirroli above, thank you for the additional WP sources. In addition to the WP editing sources you mention, I also relied on WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:CS, and WP:NPV, and looked to other published Wikipedia biographies for examples on language and tone. In terms of credible sources, I started with the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal (this and this), Forbes, Business Insider, SF Gate, and People. Once I had a base that felt substantial in terms of establishing Katie's notability, I brought in her patents, books, and other sources to add the "human" touch, in the same spirit as other Wikipedia BLPs I've read. There was a lot of press I did not include that seemed overtly promotional which I can provide links to if anyone is interested. I totally get the concern here, and am simply doing my best to use the WP guides and existing precedent of comparable biographies to fill what seems like an oversight in your encyclopedia. In terms of my relationship with Katie, I have helped her periodically with slides for speaking engagements. slestrella (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

Hi slestrella, thanks for your reply. All those sources are quite consistent in they seem (to me at least) to fail substantial depth, as discussed at WP:BASIC. Most carry variations of the same one- or two-sentence blurb about the subject and are mostly about the product or company. We already have that level of information at Proactiv. VQuakr (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with VQuaker. None of the sources presented so far have in-depth coverage of Rodan that establishes her notability. They simply don't meet the WP:BASIC threshhold. There's plenty on Proactiv/Rodan + Fields, but not on Rodan herself, other than the Forbes piece. Relying on a single source isn't enough. Dirroli (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This one seems like an obvious keep to me. Relatively new article, good references are available. Notability clear from Forbes article (most other Top 50 candidates near Rodan in the ranking have Wiki articles, like Martine Rothblatt, Sonia Gardner, Marissa Meyer,Nora Roberts, Lynda Weinman, Pleasant Rowland, Susan Wojcicki. Other national pubs as well, featured in some. Didn't see much promotional stuff...edited out? RockyMtChai (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@RockyMtChai: yes, it's been edited rather a lot since nomination. Which sources did you feel met the depth requirement of WP:BASIC (aka "featured"?) VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ETA - I spot checked a few of the others from the 30-50 range of that Forbes list. It seems hit and miss. Unconvincing either way IMHO; the examples you gave are notable because they meet WP:BASIC, not because they are on a Forbes list. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Rocky, being on a Forbes list by no means makes one notable by default. Each person must still must have their notability established based on WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Keep in mind, also, that many people with articles on Wikipedia are not actually notable. That's why we have a process like this (AfD). So it's an invalid argument to say because A is on Forbes and is notable, then B on Forbes must be notable too. And, yes, the Rodan article has been heavily edited the past several days. Dirroli (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on what sources? Several voters have made this assertion, but none have backed it up by answering my question here. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the references included in the article. Hmlarson (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmlarson, I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Rodan does not meet WP:GNG criteria. One of the vital provisions within WP:GNG is WP:SIGCOV, which says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail". Yes, the existing sources do mention Rodan, but almost none of them address her in detail. We have too many editors claiming notability, yet providing no links here to sources that have significant coverage of Rodan (the subject), rather than Proactiv or Rodan + Fields. So, please, someone provide links here to at least three solid sources (besides Forbes) that address Rodan herself in detail. If you can show me that, I will change my "vote" from delete to keep. Dirroli (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is your opinion. We're not here to convince you to change your "vote" - we're hear to contribute to the discussion. Hmlarson (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you're unable to provide three good sources that meet the WP:SIGCOV standard. Dirroli (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope - those are your words (again). Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, those are Dirroli's words and I agree with them. Just saying "it meets GNG" without being able to speciofy why is not a powerful argument. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone had the nerve to insert Rodan's WebMD biography as a reliable source to three different claims in the article, even though doctors submit their own biographies to that website. I removed them.[5] I'm not saying I doubt anything being claimed in her self-written bio, but if there's actually significant coverage of her in truly reliable sources, then no one would need to add crap sources like that to the article. Dirroli (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I see that the article's creator, Slestrella, has acknowledged their direct connection to Rodan, saying "In terms of my relationship with Katie, I have helped her periodically with slides for speaking engagements."[6] Thank you for revealing that, Slestrella. Can you please provide more clarification by expanding on your relationship with Rodan? Do you work with or for her in any other capacity? Are you involved in selling or promoting Proactiv or Rodan + Fields in any way? Are you a relative or personal friend of hers? Finally, were you paid to write/edit her Wikipedia article, or did she (or an associate of hers) ask you to do it? Please answer each of these questions. Thanks for your candor. Dirroli (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I think it's time to remind ourselves of basic Wikipedia etiquette like "Don't BITE the newcomers" and "Assume Good Faith." IMHO a few editors here are spending too much energy insulting the writers and commenters or interrogating them. I'm a relative newcomer, and Dirroli I do not appreciate your saying that I "had the nerve" to enter a "crap" reference like WebMD. I think it's time to check out the etiquette page. On the article itself: This article might be especially difficult because Rodan doesn't fit neatly into one compartment. She's a physician, professor, product inventor and developer, business owner and executive, and an expert the media likes to call on regarding dermatology topics. So I think it's important to use good judgment and common sense. Finally, notability doesn't require that all the references be there in the article. We just have to have good reason to believe they're available. And since this article was first nominated for deletion, editors who read it before found out that People Magazine wrote an article featuring her (it was referenced, but the title wasn't visible in the reference listing), and we've found a business book that included several pages about her as well as a Harvard Business School published case study that discusses her. Given that she's already been covered in Forbes, People Magazine, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, a book on business, a Harvard Business School published case study, and numerous publications, and more references continue to surface, I'm sticking with my recommendation to "Keep." Respectfully yours, Bruriyah (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is yet again another claim of notability without providing links here (besides Forbes!) to specific sources, which have been requested numerous times, so that we can see if they have significant coverage of Rodan herself. Simply naming a bunch of different notable publications doesn't verify the subject's notability. We need to actually see what comprises the coverage of the subject itself (Rodan) to determine if it's trivial or significant. The Harvard study is not about Rodan; it's about the human resources and sales strategies of the business, Rodan + Fields. The same applies to almost all the other publications; they're about Rodan + Fields and/or Procactiv, not Rodan herself. And while you may not appreciate it, what I said is necessary and accurate. It is a fact that WebMD biographies are crap sources. They're written and submitted by the doctors themselves, so obviously they're not reliable sources. So, yes, it took nerve to use a WebMD bio as a source. For the record, when I made my comment I had no idea did it, so if it applies to you, so be it. In terms of the article creator, Slestrealla, they have already acknowledged their direct, personal connection to Rodan, but have not adequately elaborated. Editors not only have a right, but also a responsibility to inquire about the extent of of an editor's apparent or obvious relationship to an article subject if they are editing the article, and most especially if they created the article. An administrator in this discussion also asked the editor several days ago on their talk page about their connection to Rodan, but has yet to receive a reply. Dirroli (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG and Doc James. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I've been thinking a lot about this one. DGG and Doc James make good sense. If this was created as a promo piece to help her earn more money, then it should be deleted. We have the clear "List of policies and guidelines that can be used for making one's case in proposing a page for deletion". One of them is WP:PROMOTION. So, was this created for that reason? Quite obviously. The creator has admitted working for Rodan, has made only edits to this article and one other. Both of these are about corporate people. It is very likely the creator is a business associate being paid rather than, say, someone in her sewing circle doing her a favour.

Furthermore, there is suddenly another single purpose account User:Nadia12m. If these two are different people, have no association to Rodan and her org, and came here to help build the encyclopedia, fine. Is that likely? Not a chance. Katie Rodan was created 12 February 2015 then Nadia12m created the polished Draft:Rodan + Fields on 15 April 2016 in one edit‎. Both subjects have been around a long time and yet both of these pages were created so close together in time. There is certainly a connection here. Neither declared themselves as paid editors contrary to the Terms of Use. Both users are possibly the same person or they work for Rodan or work together. Are these two accounts and creations here at Wikipedia to improve it? Hardly. This is obviously promo paid editing. They are here to use this encyclopedia to increase their profits.

The above, plus the fact that a case for notability is borderline puts me easily in the delete column. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)