- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Jaclyn Glenn
- Jaclyn Glenn ( | 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 links are Primary, nothing reliable that is secondary as 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 I Talk 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Blogger and some of the negative links may even be a BLP violation. (And when yours truly !votes delete, that really should count double! ). Montanabw (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- DELETE Nomination spells out lack of Google sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.210 ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: It is a non-notable internet related article. -- 24.184.132.160 ( talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment:It has been a week and six people have put Delete as a choice based on the evidence I have presented. How long is this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per all the reasons already given. To the previous poster, AfD's last at least 7 days and this likely will be closed late on the 7th day or during the 8th day. Please be patient, that is how the process works. Safiel ( talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Jaclyn Glenn
- Jaclyn Glenn ( | 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 links are Primary, nothing reliable that is secondary as 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 I Talk 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Blogger and some of the negative links may even be a BLP violation. (And when yours truly !votes delete, that really should count double! ). Montanabw (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- DELETE Nomination spells out lack of Google sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.210 ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: It is a non-notable internet related article. -- 24.184.132.160 ( talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment:It has been a week and six people have put Delete as a choice based on the evidence I have presented. How long is this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per all the reasons already given. To the previous poster, AfD's last at least 7 days and this likely will be closed late on the 7th day or during the 8th day. Please be patient, that is how the process works. Safiel ( talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (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.