Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenier E. Marmolejos


 * 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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenier E. Marmolejos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.  ttonyb (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't even have to read the article to see that it was pure fancruft. That being said, I also read the article. It's pure fancruft. Lack of notability as well. 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, un-notable.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Pink dog with cigar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Is 'I didn't even have to read the article to see that it was pure fancruft' yet more evidence that FANCRUFT as it is currently used in AfD is a facile analysis of an article's notability, or evidence that the nomination did not properly consider FANCRUFT itself when deciding whether to apply it to this article? FAN should not be applied to nominations for deletion as a sole rationale in any case, as it is an essay, and neither it nor its tenets are mentioned in WP:DELETE; for the sake of argument and an examination of this essay's use on AfD though, I will say, both.
 * However, WP:FANCRUFT itself addresses all three of these concerns:
 * Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program.
 * While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.
 * As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion.''
 * In short, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR are to be considered at AfD, but not FANCRUFT itself, which apart from an internal WP reference to the jargon used by Wikipedia editors, contains two logical premises:
 * Some FANCRUFT are NPOV or OR
 * Articles that are NPOV or OR are deleted (the "primarily" in "primarily due to" translates to: "or some other deletion reason")
 * The logical consequence (conclusion) is left unstated, but a valid progression leads to:
 * FANCRUFT are deleted if they are NPOV or OR, or some other deletion reason ("primarily" indicating not because of being FANCRUFT alone)
 * FANCRUFT recuses itself from deletion discussions. It has never been specified as a rationale for deletion on WP:DELETE, and should never be the sole rationale. DELETE mentions only those three rationales specifically, along with WP:OR and some practical/legal considerations such as COPYVIO and vandalism. The standard disclaimer in DELETE, 'including, but not limited to', indicating that it is not exclusive, was never discussed, and only once mentioned in Talk, in 2007. I assert that this wording was not accepted by the community because they believed it was necessary to include essays as the sole rationale for deleting articles, and it should be replaced with a less equivocal sentence, "Other guidelines or policies may be applicable, and in exceptional cases, essays, although these should not be used as a primary rationale".
 * The article also offers yet more evidence that AllFail is less reliable than IMDb. Allmovie has Jenier listed as Jenifer. Anarchangel (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless somebody is better at coming up with secondary sources than I. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:24, 18 January 2011 (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.