Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jae Joseph (2nd nomination)

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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Joseph[edit]

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

Procedural AFD - was previously AFDed, then PRODed. PROD reason from Huon was: "No significant coverage in reliable sources, highly promotional. Was previously deleted as non-notable spam, not sufficiently improved." I concur - I did a complete reference check: mostly bad, RSes very minor, way too many BLP claims completely uncited. This is not the same as the article text that was previously AFDed, but it's still terrible and unacceptably badly sourced for a BLP, never mind its clearly promotional nature. I suggest deleting and salting against future spammy versions. If it's kept, it needs to be culled strictly to RSes, i.e. about a stub. David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stand by my PROD rationale (and had interpreted WP:PROD to only be prevented by the article being kept at a previous AfD, but in retrospect I agree it could be read differently). Huon (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh believe me, I went over WP:PROD very carefully ;-) But "Procedure for administrators" says: "The article is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never discussed at AfD." So PRODing something previously AFDed just delays everything a week, even on such an inspirational article as this - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to actually pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2016 (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.