Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Towler


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Towler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject not notable. Waterden (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Page blanked by sole creator, and as such, speedyable. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note here, though, you gave the (relatively inexperienced) page creator two whole minutes to establish notability before dropping three page improvement tags and an AFD nomination on it. That's kind of bitey, especially since there was a clear attempt to establish notability, by linking the article in the Telegraph. Please try to be a little more helpful/considerate next time. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The page improvement tags are to help the article. Short of writing out everything the article needed in longhand, I can't see what else I can do to help. In my opinion the person is not notable. If I thought the person was notable I would have looked for further references myself. Maybe your comments here are a bit 'bitey' ? Waterden (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you didn't look for further references, then how do you know whether the person is notable or not? And if you can't see what else you could've done to help, then I have a suggestion: Writing a non-template message to the page creator, explaining how to make an article that'll meet policies and guidelines, and offering to help if they have any questions. Outside of a templated welcome, the only messages on his/her talk page are five different automated deletion notices. This is clearly a user who's interested in contributing something to the site, but lacking in know-how, but instead of helping them, you just dropped another template on their page with Twinkle. Well done. The last four templates didn't help, but I'm sure your one will do the trick. -66.93.61.53 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would echo the sentiments above. It is very offputting for new editors, who do not know of the wisdom of tagging new articles "under construction" or "in use", to prevent obnoxious interference with an article, before it is even finished.  I once even had a Know Nothing admin delete my article, before I had finished writing it.  In those days I was on a dial up connection, and wanted to save the first part of my work while I was still connected.  DO NOT BITE! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * G7 as author blanked page. Tagged as such. Tavix (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. G7 doesn't apply as at least one other editor (me) has worked on the article. Clearly a notable incident, given the coverage, but perhaps the article should be moved to Jennagate or Pension Regulator threats incident. --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not news. Also per WP:1E as well. Tavix (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I have grave doubts as to the value of this article. The subject was a journalist on a provincial paper (clearly NN), and now she is news editor (not even editor) of what I presume to be a trade rag, which has no article.  I do not think I heard of "Jennagate" or Eastmain's other suggestion, and am not sure whether this was merely a silly season story or something substantial.  It looks like an incipent libel case, and that the regulator was trying to gag the press.  One possibility would be to convert this into an article on Professional Pensions (magazine), which might have a chance of being more notabler than one of its jourtnalists.  However, we may not have heard the last of this and despite WP:NOTNEWS perhaps we should await events.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete subject has definite notability problems as well as the 1Event and NotNews problems. Article was blanked by the only significant contributor (at the time of blanking). I do agree though that placing tags which are meant to help towards improvement at virtually the same time as placing the AfD tag is inappropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (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.