Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Seng


 * 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. JForget 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Seng

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject has requested deletion at OTRS ticket number 2009112910000953. This is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion. Chaser (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, this is Jennifer. I had sent an email to Wikipedia requesting that this article be deleted as it was not written by me, nor do I wish for information on myself and my personal life being divulged as an article here. I would rather that I was not a feature in Wikipedia. I hope you can honor my request, thank you! -- Jen Could we not achieve the same thing if we all watchlisted the article?--Chaser (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ARTIST. The referenced articles are about The Boondocks, and only mention the subject in passing as a ghost artist. She did not play "a major role" in creating that work. GreenReaper (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - respect the lady--Brunnian (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources don't establish notability, only mention her in passing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While i of course wish her the best in BECOMING more notable as an artist, if she so chooses, her duties on Boondocks are mentioned (with a reference) in its article, which i think is adequate, so delete per her request, considering she is marginally notable (sounds mean, but its true).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Boondocks following request and because of little demonstration it satisfies WP:N separate from the main article. (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete, redirect and fully protect seems to be the best resolution here. Plausible search terms should not be a redlink, and redirects are cheap. This also complies with the subject's wishes, in that no personal information about her will be revealed. Tim Song (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see semi-protection, so that regular editors are not locked out should the subject gain sufficient notability to justify an article in the future. Editors should strongly consider the subject's wishes - and any protection message should note this discussion - but I don't feel it should be binding. GreenReaper (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the circumstances of this case, future recreations should probably be approved by a DRV first. Tim Song (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy at the idea that an entire article deleted on notability grounds should be subject to prior restraint. I would rest easier with an understanding that, should the subject's notability increase, personal non-notable activities should not be mentioned. Protection policy suggests semi-protection (at most) is appropriate in this case. GreenReaper (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, but there are WP:BLP concerns here. Tim Song (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you read the section I linked, it says quite clearly that semi-protection is the appropriate level of protection for BLP issues. GreenReaper (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * insertion of BLP-violating material to an existing article, yes. But protecting a redirect to prevent recreation is akin to salting, and AFAIK is normally done with a full protect. Tim Song (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I don't feel salting is appropriate. I suggested semi-protection as a compromise, to avoid accidental re-creation by new users and to ensure that editors read this discussion first, not to protect against willful re-creation. Requiring users to go to an administrator for permission is overkill in this case. GreenReaper (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable person but poorly written article. Can be improved.  Ms. Seng doesn't own Wikipedia, if she did, she could delete it, otherwise she shouldn't boss us around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inmate 5317 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is she notable according to Notability (people)?--Chaser (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2009 (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.