Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lisa Christiansen

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Despite the length of argument present, the article is still spammy, and consensus is that the subject is not notable. Courcelles 03:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lisa Christiansen

edit
Dr. Lisa Christiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note to closing admin: The article has been moved to Lisa Christiansen (motivational coach). if this discussion closes as "delete" please make sure this is deleted, and not just the redirect now left at Dr. Lisa Christiansen. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Article serves no purpose but to promote the career of the subject. Interestingly, the article's author seems to have some expertise at using "social media" to promote things. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • PLEASE HELP I went in and removed external links to anything to Dr. Lisa's site. I was including them as reference and not SPAM. Also, please explain where/how you feel article not written from a neutral point of view? I used the article wizard and modeled the format of the Tony Robbins and Jack Canfield listings. Dr. Lisa is very well-known in her industry and has worked with Tony to learn many of his strategies and now has a well-know career of her own assisting celebrities such as Kelly Clarkson, Dara Torres, and the band Journey. She deserves this legitimacy...was NOT written for marketing reasons. Again, I took the external links to her site. I don't see where it violates any of the conditions as it currently exists.Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How can that be decisioned by reading the first two paragraphs which are 100% fact? I don't understand why you are saying that? To me, I am just presenting factual information. Again, I modeled the pages of Tony Robbins and Jack Canfield which have no issues. I am genuinely trying to understand so I can make it better. What makes it SPAM to you? Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you for your input and advice. That was in the section about her autobiography and that is a fact (she has had "phenomenal" success based on what she accomplished that was outlined in that book) not opinion. However, I see where it could be misconstrued and I changed my writing style in a lot of places. This was not intended to be a testimonial but I do have a lot of respect for this woman so maybe that bled through. I have tried to make it more neutral now. Still working on it so any additional suggestions are welcome. Thank you again for taking the time to help me make it better. Sara-rockworth (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: From my experience, people who come to Wikipedia with a marketing background are unable to tell the difference between a neutral and factual article and a promotional one. Their attempts to tone down the marketing rhetoric often fall a mile short of Wikipedia's neutrality policy and usually barely manage to avoid the criteria for deletion without discussion in favor of the deletion discussion process that you are looking at here. So I would say that anyone involved in marketing who comes to Wikipedia should either show the ability to shed their marketing background entirely or leave the editing to other people.
    Also, you'll need independent sources. By independent, I mean the kind where Christiansen cannot get any change made without involving her attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThank you both for your input. I have added two independent sources. I am assuming that a public newspaper article would be considered independent? And I also did include the two web sites for the companies that have published her and are advertising her as an author in their series'. Those would be classified as independent as well, right? Again, I am not being a smartalec. I am really trying to get this correct. Sara-rockworth (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Lawton Constitution article is independent, but does not constitute significant coverage as required in WP:N. (Basically it is a "hometown girl makes good" type of piece.) The coverage provided at her publishers' websites are not reliable as their purpose is to promote Christiansen, not to report in an unbiased manner on her. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused. I have been reviewing many other biographies on here and they all read the same and have the same type of sources. Why is the one I have written any different than those? Have you looked at it since I made all the edits? Is it better? Sara-rockworth (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The language itself would be problematic, it reads exactly like a resume or a bio page from a personal website. I am also unconvinced that it meets notability requirements. I might comment to the article's author, it is not problematic to link to a person's personal page if they meet general notability (and I assume you meant biography, not autobiography?). - OldManNeptune (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:Yes, I did. Thank you. I am a little flustered in trying to get this right. I do have a question...is it not neutral now? I can't find anywhere were I am speaking from a non-neutral perspective. Additionally, she has worked with an Olympic athlete and major Grammy-winning pop stars who come to her for coaching. Doesn't that meet the notability requirement? Sara-rockworth (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No, it is still not neutral, although it is getting better. Specifically, statements such as "Her strategies for achieving lasting results and fulfillment are regarded as the platinum standard in the coaching industry." can still be found peppered throughout the article. That can be fixed, but the problem of notability still remains. No independent sources can be found that cover Dr. Christiansen in any significant depth. Without such sources, the only material available are the promotional sites run by Christiansen herself or by her publishers, none of which can be assumed to be reliable sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I am not sure exactly how to put this, but it almost reads like it is..."intentionally neutral." I mean, it reads like a PR report attempting to look like it is free of spin. I hope you are not taking this as any kind of insult to your writing, it is well written but it is not encyclopedic. As for the article's subject, it is possible for someone to be impressively accomplished but not notable by Wikipedia standards, and that may be the case here. If sufficient notability is established I'd gladly change my vote to keep and assume good faith intention to clean up the article, i.e. language changes to make it encyclopedic. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have done a major re-write taking out any and all "commentary" language. Everything that is in the article now is complete fact. I have looked at the listings of at least 20 other individuals and the article as it stands now has LESS editorialism than ANY reviewed. As far as notability, Dr. Christiansen has been the success coach to Grammy-winning Kelly Clarkson, Olympian Dara Torres, and world-renowned pop band Journey as mentioned in the article. If these people are considered "notable" enough to be included, then their "Coach" should be considered notable. It has also been suggested that the first two paragraphs are what makes the article appear "SPAM". Yet, taking those things out would take away the notability. There are no links to Dr. Christiansen's site except for the one reference to support the personal quotes. I can understand that notability is somewhat subjective but after the changes, I believe it cannot be considered "SPAM" at this point at all. Sara-rockworth (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self promotion. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
    "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
    This article and it's VERY thin self-focused citations are obviously self-prepetuated. Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete due to unreliable sources. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
    "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
    For Example:
    "Dr. Christiansen has consulted with Olympic athletes, world-renowned musicians, Fortune 500 CEOs, world class entertainers and other psychologists. Specifically, she has advised pop star Kelly Clarkson, Olympian Dara Torres, and the members of the rock band Journey." Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete due to hoaxes. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
    "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
    For Example:
    1. "Lisa is the only living direct descendent of Seqouyah - the inventor of the Cherokee alphabet..."
    2. "Christiansen's commitments also extend to finding non-traditional and holistic treatments for cancer..." Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Due to blatant promotional tone and lack of reliable references of BLP. Cindamuse (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply "Blatant Promotional Tone". Where, please, are you referring to? This is getting so that the comments of late seem to be a little heavier than constructive criticism - unlike the individuals from earlier today who seemed to be trying to assist. As evidenced by my questions, I have been diligently attempting to fix the problems addressed by the earlier reviewers, yet, it appears those of late are more interested in being snide than conscientious about content. I am not Dr. Lisa Christiansen nor am I doing this as "PR". I am simply trying to give acknowledgment to a woman who I feel has earned it. She was recently on "South Bay Women Magazine's" HealthyLife radio show and was impressive. This has definitely not been a very pleasant experience. As a first-timer, I don't mind constructive criticism at all but this seems to be a little "more" than that. Way to make someone feel welcome. By the way, I have made another revision deleting more information that could possibly come across as having a "promotional tone" even though I am not intending to promote. Sara-rockworth (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. With all sincere respect, the AfD process is established to make recommendations to a closing editor for actions regarding the deletion status of an article. While some editors may have the time to mentor or offer suggestions (and oftentimes I do), others may not have that same time. Before I discuss an article or make a recommendation, I read the article and talk page, review the history, and perform a comprehensive search for reliable sources. In my opinion, the article is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia and should have been speedy deleted under the G11 criteria entitled, "Blatant Advertising." I concur with the nominator, that the article qualifies as WP:ARTSPAM. It's nothing personal; just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • REPLY Your response was very polite. I disagree but it was polite at least, as were the initial responders. Although, I still don't get how this is considered "Blatant Advertising" as I am not trying to sell or promote anything. I am simply reporting on an individual who, in my opinion - and in the opinion of others - would be considered notable. Have I achieved what this woman has? Absolutely not. Would Kelly Clarkson or Journey hire me - or anyone who has replied here - for advice? To me, an independent third-party, that is "notable". However, it is hard to find documentation online regarding the clients of personal coaches other than on the coach's own pages. But you will notice an endorsement from Dara Torres herself and Donald Trump on Dr. Christiansen's site. I can't imagine either one - but especially Donald Trump - takes the time to write endorsements for just anyone. Furthermore, I guess I am just perplexed as to what qualifies this as promotional versus MANY other listings I reviewed in preparation to write this and as I was modifying today (including some by people that are a part of this discussion). Several tens of these I looked at had considerably more "editorializing" than my article and the same level of citations and references I had. Therefore, as I stated above, I do understand that "notability" is subjective but the accusations of "blatant SPAM" and "qualifies for speedy deletion" totally throw me. My article was not a "hoax" or "scam" and was not intended to be SPAM. It was intended to be a legitimate listing of an individual designed to recognize them as a notable figure. However, it is obvious it will be deleted based on the perception of the five people who have commented here. So, fine... I give. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. Being overly compassionate or charitable does not separate this person from any other garden-variety christian mother. And having a successful career is certainly not encyclopedic. Adide from her autobiography, this individual's only claimed literary works are 2 short stories contributed to books written by her friends [and not yet released]. This is not an established author. Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. You have made a recommendation four times now. Once is permissible. Three have been stricken. If you have additional information to add to your recommendation, please make a comment. Also, when you leave messages in talk pages, the process requires that you sign your message with four tildes ~~~~ this will automatically post your signature to the end of your post. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the concerted efforts by the SPA that created this article and has argued above at amazing length against all comers, the article still contains no indication that there exists significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nor have I found any evidence elsewhere of such coverage. Yes, there's Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, www.drlisacoaching.com, www.pr.com/press-release, etc etc, but nothing reliable and independent. (Incidentally, I agree with a post above that says this should have been speedy-deleted. The speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP editor with no other edits. And one final comment: I don't remember ever before seeing an AfD discussion anywhere near this long in which only one person is arguing for "keep".) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been requested to reconsider my !vote. Although I agree that the article has improved substantially, I stand by my opinion. It is still promotional, I can still not see what exactly establishes notability in this article, and I can still not see any reliable source that backs up a substantial claim. --Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Some of you are definitely not in this to be helpful (see "Don't Bite the Newbies") As far as noting me as a SPA, yes, this is my first post but I did NOT intend it to be my only. However, seriously rethinking that because this is not a friendly place to be. For the most part, several who are supposed to be helpful are cynical, suspicious, and rude. Furthermore, I have not been "arguing". I have been following the criteria suggested by Wikipedia in the deletion section to try and get explanation of how to make my article "right or better". Specifically, I was following the suggestions on the deletion page which say that if an article is recommended for deletion because it does not explain the notability of its subject try to improve it by: Rewriting it yourself, Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Look for sources yourself, Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. I WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THIS ADVICE AND ASKING THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS SINCE THIS WAS MY FIRST TIME. Again, I heard this lady speak on a radio show and went to look her up here. She wasn't here so I decided to write it. She seemed notable to me especially since she was endorsed by Dara Torres, Kelly Clarkson, Journey, and Donald Trump. I read the criteria for notability for biographies which seemed to apply. Wikipedia's own criteria for biographies for a person who is an expert in an academic area is: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Further covered HERE. As stated above, I have already accepted the fact that it will be deleted but I don't have to accept assaults on my intention or character without responding. For those of you who have sincerely tried to be helpful, thank you. Sara-rockworth (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By the way, doesn't my willingness to hang-around, discuss, try to learn the process and rules, and attempt to make my first article comply - despite being blasted and accused of many things - show that I did not intend to be a SPA? But rather, I am trying to learn the ropes and to do it correctly because this seemed like an interesting and useful thing to do. If I was simply here for the reasons a couple of you indicated, wouldn't I have just "disappeared" at the first sign of trouble with my article? Sara-rockworth (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On advice from a senior editor, I am not going to completely give up yet. I have totally broken down the article to its bare basics and will do diligent search for educational information and additional independent sources tomorrow. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cindamuse (talk · contribs) has done a great job at cleaning up this article and removing any of the "gee wow what a great person" tone of the article. But she still hasn't provided an article that validly asserts the notability of Christiansen. The only independent source provided is a local hometown newspaper profile ("local girl makes good" type of thing). The rest of the references are from Christiansen's own website or from websites promoting her books or her appearances. There's nothing here that makes Christiansen anything other than another motivational speaker. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I appreciate the kudos regarding the cleanup. My hope was to copy edit the article and add appropriate references. Unfortunately, at this point, I have not been able to locate reliable sources that support the information asserted in the article. As a professional researcher, I have encountered several red flags regarding this individual, as well as legal discrepancies in her claims. I've really had to step away from the article. While I had my hopes that this article could be edited and referenced, I have serious concerns. Cindamuse (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I am working on gathering the information necessary to make this comply with the Wiki requirements for biographies of academic persons. Cindamuse (talk · contribs) helped out tremendously cleaning up the article; thank you. She was also able to find information on the dissertation that was published and I have inquiries out to the persons Dr. Christiansen provided coaching to in order to see if that is documented online somewhere. The recommendation on her business acumen from Donald Trump has been added as well. Wiki-cites (talk · contribs), you seem to be very interested in this conversation and knowledgeable about Wiki policies so I have been trying to find your edits and contributions to compare but I can't seem to find others. Is this a personal interest of yours? Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No personal interest in the subject, only in the Wikipedia editing process. Regardless, no amount of article re-writes are going to make this person any more notable. I see that your new angle is academic submissions. If writing a thesis were criteria for being listed on Wikipedia, every graduate student on earth would qualify. 68.1.53.26 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)— 68.1.53.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia due to blatant promotional tone. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability. After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her. WP:BASIC states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The book, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth. I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother, since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. The article is no longer written in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. Cindamuse (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a plethora of books written about descendants. Can the subject provide support that she is indeed Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee? Surely it is on her birth certificate? Just curious why she did not mention the book you cite in the previous postings? Wiki-cites (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reliable source to show any sort of notability, much less prove any of the grandiose claims asserted in this article, no matter how many times it's been edited to remove "promotional" content. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, so, for example, the claim "She is known for her status as one of the last surviving descendants of Sequoyah of the Cherokee Nation." will continue to be heinous until it can be adequately supported by a significant, independent news article published in a recognizable, reputable publication meeting WP:RS. And, for example, claims made about Donald Trump, Tony Robbins, Kelly Clarkson and the others do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP -- their association, comments and endorsements require significantly better sourcing than the subject's non-notable website or an uploaded photo. Flowanda | Talk 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The single source that Cindamuse (talk · contribs) has found, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, might be evidence of "significant coverage" if Christiansen were today known as an expert in the Cherokee language. She is not. Her claim to fame surrounds her work as a motivational speaker, for which she is not notable. Her knowledge of Cherokee does not seem to be a significant factor in her public life at the moment, and therefore is not a source of notability. If the article were kept, it would be an interesting footnote and nothing more. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even after the heroic clean-up by Cindamuse, this is a promotion peace and there are not sufficient sources to assert notability. Incidentally, this is not the first time an article about this person has been created. Previous attempts, titled Dr. Lisa Christine Christiansen and Dr. lisa christine christiansen, were repeatedly speedied as G11, G12 and A7. There was also as sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BCISEATTLE/Archive. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I was not aware of this. I read the links you provided and assume, from this information, that Wikipedia can tell I am not a sockpuppet since I have never used Wikipedia under any other name on this IP or any other. For what it's worth, I had no knowledge of any other time Dr. Christiansen was submitted to Wikipedia prior to my own submission. Sara-rockworth (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say I am very impressed with - and appreciative of - the research Cindamuse (talk · contribs) did for the rework of this article. At the very least, I have learned immense amounts about the proper research & writing of a Wikipedia article. I truly don't see how the article can still be considered promotional and honestly believe notability is demonstrated to a greater degree than I have viewed in several other Wikipedia listings on persons. I am not sure what the posts in the past (that were deleted) looked like, but I am pretty sure they didn't reflect the same degree or level of competence this one now does due to the senior editor's efforts. I have thoroughly been 'schooled' and most certainly acknowledge and appreciate that. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expressed my view above, and expected that would be the end of my involvement. I have come back as a result of a request from Cindamuse on my talk page to return and support keeping the article. I have read the current version of the article. It is certainly very different from earlier versions, and the promotional character is no longer so blatant. Nevertheless, it is still unambiguously promotional. Notability? Several of the references are to pages on www.drlisacoaching.com, which are clearly not independent of the subject, and are essentially advertising material. There are other references to advertising materials (such as http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/4758882/AZ/Phoenix/Claim-Your-Passion/JW-Marriott-Desert-Ridge-Resort-amp-Spa/, an advertisement for an "event" run by Christiansen). Other references are to mere listings. None of these goes anywhere towards establishing notability. Then we have "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan". How significant is this? Clearly not any book can be taken as indicating notability, or anyone could establish notability by having someone self-publish something about them, so it is worth considering the status of the book. A Google search produced a sum total of two hits. One of these is a Whois Record for the domain LisaChristineChristiansen.com, which currently does not appear to mention "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan". Presumably it did when Google last checked it, but a Whois Record for a domain confirms nothing but existence. The one other Google hit is a listing of Library of Congrees catalog entries. Once again, this confirms nothing but existence. This is, in fact, precisely the result I would have expected if the "book" were of no significance at all: much the same as what would result if I wrote a book and had it printed and issued. "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan" may be more significant than that, but I can find no evidence that it is. I also have to consider the point made above about that at best the book is a source for something other than what she is known for. For the things which constitute the bulk of the article no independent sources are cited at all. If this is the best evidence of notability that can be achieved after a very concerted effort to provide sources, then this increases my impression of non-notability, and, contrary to what Cindamuse asked for, confirms rather than contradicts my view that Christiansen is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional. I always read the article before reading the AfD page, and having now read this page find that the article must have been almost pure advertising if this is the rewritten version. Looking up the autobiography, I find it hard to find anything at all other than promotional stuff or mirroring. The same wording comes up in the gblurbs that I can almost recite it now. It seems hard, too, to separate the Blue People Clan from the subject of this article. I wanted to know more about them. It may be that they are very little known, or that the publicity machine that appears to be in operation has swamped them. Peridon (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. General lack of reliable sourcing for claims which might legitimately establish notability. For example, while the article claims she organized the distribution of $100,000 worth of bicycles, the supporting source reports only that eleven bikes were given to children.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This picture, used in the article, looks to me like a photoshopped montage. As was stated above, Donald Trump's endorsement of Christiansen's work should be sourced to a website maintained by Trump himself or else left out of the article altogether. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:32, 24 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Lisa_Christiansen&oldid=1069022834"