Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jensen Reed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Shimeru 03:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jensen Reed[edit]
- Jensen Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is sourced from the subjects website. Koala15 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The rationale offered is only partly true: 3 of the 8 references are to the subject's website. But even if it was wholly true, the question here is one of whether notability can be demonstrated, not simply the quality of the current references. (That said, strong references are not immediately evident.)AllyD (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of the sources, he still does not meet notability guidelines. Koala15 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject keeps s close track of his media mentions at his website, and it does not approach the sourcing standards required here. I was unable to find anything better that had escaped his curation. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:25, 1 June 2013 (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.