Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacoline B. Loewen


 * 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. StarM 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacoline B. Loewen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of the source are internal links. Not sure what the actual claim of notability is. Looks much like a resume/vanity but not as obvious as most. Source issues, but still not notable even if it is all true. D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems legit, I think that this article needs to be seriously reworked. Melia Nymph (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it may be legit (as in it may be accurate and not written as spam), but what is "notable"? That is what I couldn't figure out, and no real claim is made that I can see.  That is the issue.  I could live with fixing the bad links and helping sourcing it myself if someone can explain what criteria this meets.  How does she qualify for inclusion?   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No Gnews hits whatsoever except for a thank-you on a blog run by the CBC. Google hits are mostly to social networking sites, or marketing for her book. Article has a strong advertisement quality about it. I conclude that this fails WP:BIO requirements for notability. Also possible case of WP:COI given that this is article creator's first article. RayAYang (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't see what was notable even given the PR piece that currently exists. I tried to fix the refs that weren't just links to company websites. She has some published material.  But I don't see any refs for independent news coverage.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and ChildofMidnight's point. ~ Pip 2  andahalf  06:09, 7 November 2008 (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.