Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Sinkler


 * 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. Tone 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Jen Sinkler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was entirely created by an undisclosed paid editor (see details on the Talk page). The editor already had a sockfarm blocked a while ago and the Jen Sinkler article was cleaned up, trimmed and tagged. It looks not notable and deletion was already suggested by other users at talk page, with nobody reasoning for inclusion. MarioGom (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like an ad, and per Talk page the subject of the biography herself is in the testimonial of the guy who edited her page. 'Great attention to detail', except for leaving an obvious connection between her client and this article. Pilaz (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, find it funny that User:SinklerSupport came back to try to remove the problematic banners.Pilaz (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SOAP, while it may meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The fact that it reads like an ad or was edited by someone with a conflict of interesting are not valid reasons for deletion of an article (although they are certainly valid reasons for editing and/or pruning). The question that matters is: does she pass the WP:GNG? The existing coverage seems to me to indicate that she does, although not overwhelmingly. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (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.