Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristel Kruustük


 * 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. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Kristel Kruustük
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia. The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people). One startup person among dozens of thousands. Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone. Userland12 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic. Ivo (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - notability has already been proven in the article, which is well sourced. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Some other sources I found in a quick search: in Forbes,  in VentureBeat,  in Äripäev. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only it fails WP:PROMOTION but also fails WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). - Userland12 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar.  I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above.  The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL. How can she be a millionaire when she's in debt for $7M? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable person whose company doesn't even have a page. Kori  ( @ ) 00:04, 2 May 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.