Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen hatton


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Jen Hatton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any reliable sources mentioning this person; the only sources I could find are from the Irish Mirror, an unreliable source. Thus, because we cannot confirm the information in this article, it should be deleted. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – At this time. Has not reached the level of inclusion for an encyclopedia at this point.  Hopefully someday she achieves her goals. Just not there yet as shown here on a Google News search  ShoesssS Talk 18:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. There isn't much information in the article, not enough, and the individual doesn't seem notable enough at this time. I would agree to delete. Henry  TALK  18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. On the latter (ENT), the only criteria (to support notability under "large fan base or significant cult following") is follower-count. I'm no expert on what constitutes a high number of YouTube subscribers, but 1000 subscribers is perhaps not a relatively "large fan base". On the former (GNG), while a few online news outlets have repackaged the subject's videos, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage on the subject herself. Repackaged self-published videos are not "independent of the subject" and not "significant coverage in reliable sources". In short: Firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear notable, and the article is unreferenced and unencyclopedic. Looks like it's riddled with BLP vios too. Is it really realistic for her to be the daughter of Dustin the Turkey? Aspening (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't even slightly comply to WP:MOS and is frankly a terribly written article.  IWI  ( chat ) 23:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, yes please. I've removed most of the highly unlikely unsourced content for which I could not find any sources at all that backed it up, and I've also requested that the page be semi-protected due to persistent BLP violations. All that's left is a few sentences, and all I was able to find when looking for sources, besides profiles (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) was a tiny bit of coverage in non-reliable sources. Fails the notability guidelines.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and general RS/notability. Snowycats (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above. 344917661X (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the editors above me - No evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:55, 18 July 2018 (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.