Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Cohn


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jen Cohn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP with some advertorial overtones of an actress, which contains potentially valid claims of notability but isn't properly sourcing them. Practically right across the board the "references" here are to unacceptable sources like blogs, IMDb and her own primary source content about herself -- and the only two things that count as real reliable source coverage in real media are covering her solely in the context of being married, to someone notable enough that the coverage exists more because him than her, not in the context of anything that would give her passage of a notability criterion. I'm willing to withdraw this if the tone can be adjusted for WP:NPOV and the referencing can be improved, but Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which people get to keep promotionally-toned profiles just because they exist -- notability has to be supported by a considerably better class of referencing than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete second the nominator that the only adequate sources relate to her marriage, and they exist because her husband is such a notable figure. Nothing to show she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Query how would i go around maintaining this page if there are limited interview sources regarding her voice work, even though She is quite active? Would links to film, series, and game cast credits assist at all? Thanks. - justkyledavid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justkyledavid (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Film, series and game cast credits would not assist, no — and, for that matter, neither would "interview" sources. A person gets over our inclusion criteria for actors by being the subject of reliable source coverage — interviews can be sparingly used for some supplementary confirmation of stray facts after enough of the expected quality of sourcing is present to get her over WP:GNG, but they cannot be the GNG in and of themselves because they represent the subject talking about herself rather than third parties objectively assessing her impact and notability. Being "quite active" is not an automatic inclusion freebie for an actress in and of itself — if the article can't be referenced properly, she's not exempted from having to pass GNG just because she's a working performer who's had roles. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (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.