Deletion of Rachel Romer Carlson

Comment: the worst nomination I have seen today. Subject meets . There is an in-depth Forbes article about her from a Staff Writer, which unlike contributing writers,  is an acceptable format. There are also CNBC and New York times articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I follow a {{u|Rosguill|Rosguillian}}, philosophy when engaging in AFD's which is, make your point, add perhaps two more points/arguments and then back off & let the community handle the rest. My thought is this is the archetypal example of . She definitely has a bright future ahead of her & would invariably get an article on her retained on mainspace but im afraid now is not that time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: There is no policy based argument in Wikipedia that if a person is a CEO of a large company, then they must be notable. There is no coverage with a thought. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)