Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica London (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica London

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Rewrite (I assume) of deleted article; notability is still unclear FisherQueen (Talk) 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The company is notable enough to be a sponsored topside Google link and has over six hundred thousand G-hits.  RGTraynor 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I didn't think that G-hits could establish notability. Where are the multiple sources of which the company is the subject? UnitedStatesian 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see non-trivial second party sources in this article. If that should change during the course of this AfD so will my vote Alf Photoman  23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge content and redirect to Redcats Group PPR (company), a huge mail-order conglomerate. --Selket Talk 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * although, several other redcats subdivisions do have their own pages. --Selket Talk 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notice that on the talk page, creator acknowledges that she is an employee who has been assigned to create this article, a clear conflict of interest. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to accept the creator's rationale that she has followed the spirit of the guideline. Also, a conflict of interest is not a good definitive reason to delete; just a good reason for cleanup, if needed.—Carolfrog 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's up the the article to establish notability, delete. --fvw *  22:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a sponsored topside Google link merely means the company has enough money to pay for the ad.  That said, I think notability is established well enough, although we should keep an eye out for more sources.  —Carolfrog 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. For better or for worse, the essence of our attribution policy is a requirement that independent, reliable sources describe the topic in enough detail to support an encyclopedic article. Notability is a guideline, but attribution is a policy, and policy trumps guideline where, as here, the two arguably conflict. It doesn't matter if a topic is notable enough to get a zillion Google hits if we're not able to verify any information about it. And if all we have to rely on is a company's own web site amd materials, we can't really say much that's reliable about it. We can't possibly comply with WP:NPOV as there's one and only one view on it available to us. If there's a problem, we'll never know about it. The requirement of independent coverage is built in to our core policies for a reason. This article lacks evidence of it. Delete. --Shirahadasha 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Shirahadasha. Black-Velvet  06:14, 16 March 2007 (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.