Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Bendixsen

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bendixsen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. very limited coverage [1]. much of the coverage i found is from ABC which is her employer so not third party. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The West Australian has an in-depth article.[2] and they are independent of the subject. Strange that it does not show up in a g-news search. Maybe something is broken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - referenced article about a host of a nationally broadcast tv show on a major network is enough for me. As for the article from The West not showing up in google searches, that is because they are partially owned by Channel 7, which owns/has a deal with Yahoo in Australia, so google simply ignores/downgrades the yahoo.com address in some searches!The-Pope (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE is subordinate to the GNG. If we were to rigidly apply WP:CREATIVE in all cases, we'd only have hit artists. That's not what Wikipedia is about. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT - get rid of the unsourced fancruft (possibly to be replaced by sourced fancruft from the West Australian article!) --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and yes... clean up any cruft. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is also [3] and some coverage [4]. Weakly meets the GNG but meets it nonetheless. –MuZemike 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.