Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Draper

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Draper[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been able to find no in-depth coverage in any sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your view that this biography doesn't meet the policy requirements, remember that we are talking about a living person here so please try not to sound so harsh towards the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being harsh, I am merely saying how this subject meets notability requirements. I have no view on the living person, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you do have a view on the living person. I'm saying your comment could be read as expressing such a view, especially if the living person concerned is not familiar with Wikipedia jargon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go. Seriously I've never encountered this in my 16 years in Wikipedia and I've been involved in thousands of AfDs. It's a deletion discussion not a personal appraisal. You should know better as an admin. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not a personal appraisal. The point is that not everybody who reads these discussions does and we should be careful to avoid giving the impression that it is. It's never too late to start being conscientious. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go. Seriously. I don't intend to change how I comment in AfDs because of what you say. Let it go. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failing BIO is a statement of fact, similar to failing GNG or ACTOR. They don't meet the requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Thanks Oaktree. There was zero harsh intent in saying that an article does not meet notability standards. Same if I said a company article clearly fails WP:CORP, I'm not insulting the company in anyway. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:NBIO. A search found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:NBIO, nd not have any reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got nothing else to add. Appears as open and shut case as could possibly be. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2023 (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.