Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Pampling

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) 00:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pampling[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a fashion designer that does not show how she is notable. Was created with many references but they were for the most part deceptive. Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some were dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about Pampling this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, together with the rest of the spam cluster. complainer (talk) 00:28, 5 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy promotional stuff. I wasn't able to turn up any significant third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 19 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.