Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Allen


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Jennie Allen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet notability guideline for people; autobiography, sources are all affiliated with the subject. Drm310 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator - no evidence of any notability.--Smerus (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Created by the author herself from the looks of the username, and creator is an WP:SPA. Seems like a blatant attempt to use WP to promote herself. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The original state of the article was terrible, as it was really just a fairly promotional piece as a whole. However I did find just enough to where there is an assertion of notability when you count in If:Gathering. There was a fair amount of coverage for that gathering, and along with the few reviews/coverage she got for an author, I'd argue that there's just enough here for a weak keep. I still have to check Highbeam (it's down for me right now), so I may change this to a more firm keep if I can find more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above & mainly - Had Jennie not actually created her article I would've !voted weak keep .... But it's obvious this persons decided to promote herself, There are plenty of ways to promote yourself and WP isn't one of them. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  11:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very, very uncomfortable with the idea of arguing deletion solely because the author decided to come on here and use it as a way to spam for herself because ultimately it's not helpful to Wikipedia. We don't TNT something if the issue of promotion has been dealt with. If you're going to argue deletion, argue it on the basis of notability. We can always watch the article and revert any promotional edits. We can also delete the promotional history if it's deemed that bad. Heck, we can always block her account if she tries any of that promotional crap again., consider this your first and last warning about this. But we should not and I repeat should not delete an article out of retribution for someone coming on to use Wikipedia as their own personal Linkedin account. I hate spam editors just as much as the next person, but we shouldn't vote delete solely because we want to spite the spammer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We should delete purely based on that, I've voted !delete millions of times on these kind of articles and so's everyone else, This article is no different from what's listed at MFD, Anyway as I said the 'pedia isn't the place to start promoting yourself. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As the nominator, I must confess that I'm now a bit conflicted. Tokyogirl79 has made an effort to alter the content and verify it with better sources. I freely admit to being unsure of which sources are considered reliable. Certainly there's no doubt about the Charlotte Observer, an established newspaper. How about Publishers Weekly, a trade magazine? Or Christianity Today, a religious periodical? If either or both of those are deemed reliable, I would say that the subject has received sufficient coverage to be considered notable.
 * As much as I despise seeing a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI writing about themselves, occasionally it can be the start of an acceptable article about a notable topic. I agree that the article should not be deleted as a punitive measure toward the creator. It should be judged on its merits in its current form. --Drm310 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that CT is usable, as it has editorial oversight and has been used as a RS in the past. Publishers Weekly... it's a trade and it's still technically counted as a reliable source for the most part. I don't think there's ever been an official consensus on whether or not to use those, for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * CommentHello WPers, this is my first time attempting to contribute to the WP community, so your grace is much appreciated! Please feel free to go ahead with the deletion of this page, and I will attempt to gain more citations and legitimacy for Jennie's notability. The purpose of this article is not promotional at all and was not created by Jennie Allen herself. Again, this is my first time, and I made the mistake of making a user page and not a article. Apologies for not following the guidelines properly! Thank you for all that you do. – Jennie 2010 •  (talk)  9:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suspect that the better approach is to accumulate a few reliable sources on IF:Gathering and to start a piece on that with a redirect there. That one might have enough sourcing available to get over the GNG bar (at least the Google footprint is promising). This looks to be a case of "Too Soon" for a free-standing bio — although the Best New Writer in the Christian category noted in the Publishers Weekly piece indicates that this day is probably soon — and that I might be wrong. Carrite (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - notability has nothing to do with the legitimacy, goodness, or importance of someone's work or beliefs; it's about fame and recognition in reliable sources. The subject of this stub (article) seems to have organized a single conference; I don't see how that passes either WP:BLP1E or WP:GNG more generally. Her books have not been best-sellers, nor have they been reviewed extensively by the critics, so she fails WP:AUTHOR; she might barely pass with the newly added sources.  I think the past consensus is that an article should not be deleted merely because the subject edited their own article; normally we just tag it for conflict of interest, warn the user, and edit out the peacock lanague and cruft.  However, human beings can't always be objective about themselves. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (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.