Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Jewsbury


 * 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 no consensus.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 22:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Anna Jewsbury

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No real sourcing. A couple of interviews, the rest is company product listings. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  12:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep a lot of the sourcingis mentions in passing but in aggregate seems like enough to scrape WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added some refs, upgrading to keep. Artw (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep there is significant coverage. Passes notability and Wp:GNG. Coverage is from credible publications. Did a google search and found this WSJ mention, which I will add.Peter303x (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This user is a WP:SPA and that is a very poor reference.   scope_creep Talk  08:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SPA??? in what way? I have been doing editing since 2013 and have hundreds of edits. I have done edits to musicians, musical instruments, entertainers, entrepreneurs, companies, general stuff, AFDs, etc. Explain what is my single purpose??? Either you are trying to discreet me with personal attacks or this was a mistake, in which case you should apologize.  And I beg to differ with WSJ being a poor source. WSJ is Top 10 publication. Getting coverage, even a mention from WSJ, is great for notability. It's like you get a Top 10 Billboard song. I also seen you post SPA messages before and you were right on point with what I have seen, so I am assuming this was a mistake.Peter303x (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a SPA. You show up when there is certain Afd's appear, which means your probably paid.   scope_creep Talk  23:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said I am editor since 2013 and have done hundreds of edits. I didnt even do any AFD until 2018! Please stop accusing me. This is now WP:HAR. Instead lets get back on subject on why you think a WSJ is not a good source.Peter303x (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. Kolma8 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, some editors above talk of mentions adding up to meeting WP:GNG, but it is specific about significant coverage, not trivial ie. mentions, these mentions are just bread and butter to designers, they are not the sort of things that make someone wikinotable, the same if we apply WP:CREATIVE here, so am leaning towards delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.