Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Meretsky


 * 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. No policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Meretsky

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Conflict of interest (subject edited article), no assertion of notability or verifiability Nobody of consequence 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Biography of living person with no indication of notability and no references. Unless notability can be established before close of AfD and reliable sources added, should be deleted. Can always start again after establishing notability. --AliceJMarkham 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non notable person. Although, COI is never a reason to delete an article. - Rjd0060 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment No opinion on deletion, but I would like to point out that the COI edits to the article remained neutral and removed some speculative claims (although rather benign ones that she "likes fashion" and such). COI should not be a primary reason for deletion as in this rare case the article was actually helped by it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - what about the other articles created by WP:SPA user to populate ""These seem equally non-notable. &mdash; 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ranieri has a couple references in the external links section that could be use I guess, but Cornett is completely unreferenced. She ought to go, prolly. Nobody of consequence 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: If this article is deleted, so should all articles about MSNBC personnel, and for that matter, all television personalities. Jackie Meretsky is a "stub" article (which I have labeled as such), and should be allowed to remain for future edits.  Nothing in the article is inapproriate. Candy62 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Articles must satisfy WP:N and WP:V and this one doesn't satisfy either currently. Although, adding citations from reliable sources would make me withdraw this nom very quickly. Nobody of consequence 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunts13 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but why? Nobody of consequence 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * this seems like an okay source... but mainstream news coverage is surprisingly thin for someone with her resume. There's nothing on the 2 extensive news archive searches I tried. --W.marsh 13:47, 13 November 2007 (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.