Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 August 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 September 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jade

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

There's nothing notable about this person and the entire entry reads like a PR or marketing effort. That's not the idea behind Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaminmedia (talk • contribs) 23:28, July 9, 2012‎

Note to closer: I have refactored this nomination to include the standard AfD and the {{unsigned}} template. This nomination is not listed in a daily AfD log so I am adding it now. Please consider this as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Also, the sourcing is as poor as I've ever seen in an article with these many references. I must have commented on 100s of discussions at AfD over the years, and this is one of the worst. For example, Note 15 does not even have anything to do with the subject and does not even mention her in passing! Most of the other references are social networking sites, or Faux News, and the like. I can't see any evidence that she's notable. Just to be sure, I looked at Google News and found nothing at all, except false Ghits about Bianca Jagger and Jade Jagger. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to be as harsh as Bearian, but this is indeed a stellar example of notability masking and wikipuffery. Them From Space 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The article has lots of references, but sadly none of them can be considered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Google doesn't turn up any reliable sources either. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and ban anybody who's ever worked at it This article is a nightmare of wikipedia manipulation, with almost 40 sources confirming close to every word in the article, a professional-looking picture, somewhat encyclopedic language, all this for a run-of-the-mill training instructor that never, ever will be notable enough. complainer (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in question has been a most interesting, and at times entertaining, read. It is clear that, having gone to some amazing lengths to try to establish notability or any rationale for the page, an article on Bianca Jade at this juncture is not something the community — editing users and non-editing users — will want, much less need. The fact that the page is essentially "owned" by a few users (User:ShanaScala, User:Nbon91, and, to some (also considerable) extent, User:PRRfan), with one user going to particularly extreme lengths to defend subject and/or merits of the article on another user's talk page. At least two of these user's contributions more or less reflect those of a single-purpose account, and it is evident that there is the possibility, however slight, that these editors may not be the most useful, neutral parties in editing the article.

If it is policy to block individuals for extensively working with an article such as this (or repeated messing with Wikipedia in bad faith), with the deletion of "Bianca Jade", it may completely be unnecessary to block individuals that have worked on this, or at least the single-purpose accounts. Page protection after deletion, if that is to occur, is definitely worth considering as is a AfD for the article "Logan Kurtz", which suffers similar issues (and is quite significantly and non-objectively, even favourably, edited by one User:Logansfv, who may or may not be the subject of the article, thus comprising the article's integrity). --[[User:Qwerty_Binary|Qwerty Binary]] ([[User_talk:Qwerty_Binary|talk]]) (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2012 (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.