Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carissa Christensen


 * 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 don't see sufficient weight to the keep argument to override the delete arguments. Being a commentator is not the same as being commented on. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Carissa Christensen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable business person who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits in sources which aren’t independent of her or sources which are unreliable such as this & this. WP:ANYBIO is also not met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage is very sparse. As a result there is not much to say int he article beyond the fact that she is an executive who is sometimes quoted in the media.--- Possibly (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete lacking in reliable sources and seems to be a known speaker in her field but nothing out of the ordinary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep she has been a go-to person for commentating on the emerging industry over a number of years and
 * I don’t see how the two sources you provided does anything to establish notability & furthermore being a “go to” person isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability.Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for using shorthand 'go to'. I still vote 'Keep' as I had noted in the citations and in article's opening section that it shows over a considerable time period, notable major organisations had considered her worthy of using and listening to for strategic advice.Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For starters; please always sign appropriately(I have done so for you now, see WP:SIGN all the same), secondly, there’s no need to bolden the keep used in body of the comment because it’s not like it’s going to make a difference or anything. Now, a portion of your comment above reads, that isn’t still a criterion used in determining notability. Are you familiar with our notability policy? I’m not responding to you for you to change your !vote, I’m merely trying to make you know that you do not know what you think you know, all the rationales you have provided for !voting a keep aren’t in sync with our policy on notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.