Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Rae Le Roux

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 speedy delete per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Rae Le Roux[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)

Poorly-written article with no references whatsoever that fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I can't find no references for now of this self-made millionaire. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2021

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a WP:HOAX article, and there is a failure of WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL: Now Californians have a choice between 46 candidates to be their next governor in recall election (Palm Beach Examiner, 2021), Redding woman is running to replace Governor Newsom in recall election (ABC7, 2021), A mayor, a pastor and an adult film star: Who's running against California Gov. Newsom in recall election? (NBC News, 2021), and other brief mentions/routine election coverage I have found do not appear to be sufficient to support notability for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I undid WaddlesJP13's (non-admin closure) for a couple of reasons. Yes, its likely that will be the result, but it hasn't happened yet, and so the page still includes a template directing people to an open AfD. The page still exists and while we might all agree with the speedy deletion, we probably shouldn't be closing discussions before it happens. And the nominator probably shouldn't NAC something unless they are withdrawing the nomination, but that's procedural. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no question, Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there appears to actually be a candidate in the upcoming gubernatorial election in California by this name. I think we're unwise to label this article as a complete hoax. Much of the content may well be drivel, but it does seem that the candidate exists. Whether this makes them notable is a separate question. One possibility that occurs to me is that the creation and silly content of this article might be a political "dirty trick": create an article about a political rival, fill it with silliness, then have the article deleted so that it's more difficult to re-create with more robust content. I feel we should tread carefully here. RomanSpa (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article now appears to have been deleted without a proper closure of this debate. I feel this was unwise. RomanSpa (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it before. I believe it's within policy to CSD something that is at AFD. Someone will likely be along shortly to procedurally close this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the article has been prod'd for deletion (and listed here), it has not yet been deleted. I have requested resolution of the prod and closure of this AfD by an admin. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh strange, it was G3'd earlier. Someone must have restored it. You can disregard my comment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't have adequate sources at all, and there are no references on this person. Tahaaleem ^Talk 10:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. This BLP has quite a few claims. I googled and could not verify any of them. Jenny Rae Le Roux does exist and is a political candidate, but most of this failed verification, e.g. Urkel, copyright lawsuit, throwing peaches. Arguably a G10 too, the part about throwing peaches at prostitutes, zero hits in Google News for that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this relates to a real living person, but is filled with unsourced claims. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has been deleted G3 Jeepday (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2021 (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.