- 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenna Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article had a proposed deletion that I believe was removed in bad faith by an anonymous user. Like was stated on the original proposal, the subject of this article is too obscure and does not have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page. A small amount of exposure on YouTube and minor local media coverage is not enough for a subject to have a page on Wikipedia. In addition, the article is horribly referenced. My views are also shared by editors who have posted on the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I removed the Prod because there are sources on the article and felt that an AFD would be better if someone thought it should be deleted. Also I am not an anonymous editor. At this point I have no recommendation GB fan (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for stating that you were anonymous and your removal was done in bad faith. I misread the page's history and thought that the prod was removed in a different edit that was made anonymously and had no summary listed. I submitted it to AFD because I didn't think the subject had enough notability and I still believe it needs a lot more citation, as I have stated above.Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't currently meet the notability guidelines. As already noted, the level of citation is pitiful which I suspect is the result of there simply being a lack of sources due to low notability.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yet another passing youtube peak of interest that will die out shortly. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This subject has had significant local media coverage (not minor as the nom says).[1]; [2]; [3]. Also has been some foreign coverage, [4]. A possible solution is to redirect and include at List of YouTube personalities.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I feel it important to keep small pages like this, as it peaks interest about small things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.59.141 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What would differentiate between major and minor media coverage? Most people that have Wikipedia pages have more than three or four local media articles written about them, let alone some nationwide coverage. Also, what does nom mean? Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nom (nominator) GB fan (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What differentiates major and minor is subjective at the margins, but if there are articles specifically showcasing a person, that's more than "minor" to me. Passing references to a person are minor. I'm not advocating for this article to be kept though, I realize her fame is mostly piggybacked off of Rebecca Black.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to add that fame, although linked to notability is not the same thing. I think the key question here is whether this is just a spike of news coverage of the latest odd internet thing of interest, or is it of actual lasting note. That is something that is not easily done now, as only time can tell for sure whether this is something that will live on in coverage. As editors, we need to examine the what the sources are, how much coverage there is, where this coverage occurs and the nature of the coverage. For me, it falls into the category of just another news item about the latest internet thing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for stating that the coverage was minor. I had originally claimed that because, although there were articles that were focused around her, they were few in number. I also feel that it is good to keep articles that have short sensational coverage if the subject is notable (which there are a lot of examples), but the subject of this article falls far short of any notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to add that fame, although linked to notability is not the same thing. I think the key question here is whether this is just a spike of news coverage of the latest odd internet thing of interest, or is it of actual lasting note. That is something that is not easily done now, as only time can tell for sure whether this is something that will live on in coverage. As editors, we need to examine the what the sources are, how much coverage there is, where this coverage occurs and the nature of the coverage. For me, it falls into the category of just another news item about the latest internet thing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What differentiates major and minor is subjective at the margins, but if there are articles specifically showcasing a person, that's more than "minor" to me. Passing references to a person are minor. I'm not advocating for this article to be kept though, I realize her fame is mostly piggybacked off of Rebecca Black.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the account about her? She's sorta famous. All famous people should be one here. I mean, you have Rebecca Black on here. Why not Jenna Rose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.81.48 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I submitted this to AFD because I believe it is cited poorly she is not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Rebecca Black has received far more press coverage and her article is cited a lot better than this one. Even though you may consider her famous, Wikipedia has a guideline which I do not believe qualifies her to have her own page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Think this can wait till the subject title gets more notability - If she ever does. 137.132.250.10 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2011 (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.