Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Danville

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Danville[edit]

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

Crystalballery. No refs. Marcus Qwertyus 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually put a PROD on the article but you then edited immediately after I did. Oh well.
Delete' per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:IINFO. elektrik SHOOS 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and/or WP:TOOSOON. --Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not policy, and really shouldn't be cited in Afd as a reason. (The other one's valid, though.) Just so you know. elektrik SHOOS 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)~~Nevermind. elektrik SHOOS 06:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langston Bonasera (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not enough references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until Season 7 starts and she makes her first appearance this article will not be complete, it will be pointless deleting it as in September it will just be created again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langston Bonasera (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument doesn't make any sense. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, Also, all the information comes from blog pages. It has been stated repeatedly in the CSI talk pages that blog entries are NOT valid third party citations, and continuing to use them does not mean they will be accepted as valid. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2010 (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.