Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaclyn Glenn: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Comment |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Delete''' - As per nomination, blogs do not constitute significant coverage, and somehow slipped by wikipedia moderators upon creation. Seems very promotional including links to twitter, youtube, facebook of this person. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.193.250.253|68.193.250.253]] ([[User talk:68.193.250.253|talk]]) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Delete''' - As per nomination, blogs do not constitute significant coverage, and somehow slipped by wikipedia moderators upon creation. Seems very promotional including links to twitter, youtube, facebook of this person. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.193.250.253|68.193.250.253]] ([[User talk:68.193.250.253|talk]]) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*'''Delete''' non-notable YouTube personality.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' non-notable YouTube personality.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - I believe we should close this debate and this should be a speedy delete at this point in time. |
|||
Revision as of 18:42, 19 June 2016
- Jaclyn Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Lack of sources, and the article lacks notability by notability guidelines. As it stands does not meet Wikipedia criteria. Many sources are not Primary, they are (Maybe) secondary, and the article uses mostly blogs as sources. There are many YouTube personalities with large followings that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a stand alone page. I do not feel based on the current setup of this page that this individual ranks in that category either. In short fails Fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:BASIC, as most information available via Google is Blog based, or interview sources, nothing Primary. Makk3232 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't demonstrate enough notability for inclusion. The only sources cited (and the vast majority of sources that actually exist) about her are blogs. Not enough mainstream media coverage. This girl could potentially become notable in the future, at which point an article would be appropriate, but now's not the time. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nomination, blogs do not constitute significant coverage, and somehow slipped by wikipedia moderators upon creation. Seems very promotional including links to twitter, youtube, facebook of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.250.253 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe we should close this debate and this should be a speedy delete at this point in time.