Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Estelle


 * 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, uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jamie Estelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CREATIVE. There is a lack of significant third party coverage about this woman. She is a jewelry designer who had pieces used on TV shows. The sourcing is horrible, mostly YouTube, Facebook and Etsy. Once those are gone, there is little left. A minor piece from a local radio station is probably the closest thing to actual coverage by a reliable source. She may be notable later, but not yet. Appears to be more of a promotion than an encyclopedia article. Article was PROD'd, but the author (who has no edits anywhere else), removed the PROD without comment.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of sourcing, the best/only noteworthy hit I have found is a piece on The Examiner, but the entire website has been (dubiously, IMO) blacklisted as a source. Mabalu (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2016 (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.