Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Stanford-Kristiansen


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Debbie Stanford-Kristiansen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businesswomen. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO  scope_creep Talk  10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the fact that most of the categories apply to her company not her is a key sign she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – Most sources in the article are contain no coverage of her aside from interviews, and the other ones are obviously not independent or presumably not given the promotional nature of the article. I can't find anything better than that save for a trivial mention. The claimed award doesn't come close to meeting ANYBIO#1 given it isn't even mentioned somewhere else in the encyclopedia. Happy Festivities! //  J 947  (c) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll change my !vote to redirect to Novo Cinemas as that is where all her coverage stems from. Also I've stricken an incorrect part of my statement but she still doesn't meet ANYBIO given that the award doesn't have an article. Happy Festivities! //  J 947  (c) 01:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was created by an undisclosed paid editor that is now blocked, in what appeared to be a series of articles created in such a fashion. I think most are now gone. Per the subject itself, she fails GNG in that all coverage is in relation to the company and independent quality coverage about her doesn't seem to exist, therefore she would appear non-notable. As for a redirect, I would advise against it given what I previously described. It would feed the spam machine, so to speak. Don't give the PR spammers any credit. PK650 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really think a redirect can feed spam. If it does give them credit then that is not our problem as if they do anything about it then it should just be reverted straight back to the redirect. If we do give them credit inadvertently then that's fine and all it does is causes their satisfaction, and doesn't result in any sort of problem for us. Happy New Year! //  J 947 &thinsp;(c)  21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A redirect would be ideal if there was some level of usefulness was present. However she is completely non-notable and more so, completely unknown, so any kind of dud redirect won't be searched on. It is useless and more so, they is no value in it.  scope_creep Talk  22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * She has been the focus of quite a few interviews; she is non-notable, but there is a fair chance that someone will search her up on Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap and dud redirects are searched on (many examples at RfD when you look at their page views). Happy New Year! //  J 947 &thinsp;(c)  23:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very instructive, thanks! PK650 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2020 (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.