Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Nicole Henderson


 * 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. SNOW. Whether this is a speedy A7 or not depends on the interpretation of a plausible claim to importance, but there is no doubt about lack of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Nicole Henderson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced BLP. Links are in the article, but go to either a personal site, PR site or Wiki Answers. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I've stripped out the excess WikiAnswers, Tumblrs, Twitters per WP:ELNO Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have removed all the unreferenced claims from the article, basically making it a stub. In any case the subject seems to fail WP:BIO. Most of the stuff I find in a Google search seems like self-promotion, someone trying to mention her in as many places as possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I imagine I'm missing something obvious, but... Even before it was stubified, why doesn't it qualify for an A7?  I don't see any real claim of notability. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing. Tangential references suggested that she appeared in a Reality TV competition that was nationally broadcast plus being signed to a specific agency and wardrobe line suggest a reasonable (if unsourced) claim of notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - That may be the case, but that's only sufficient to survive a speedy deletion, not to survive AfD. Clearly does not pass notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, this article is near empty and provides no reason to believe it passes WP:GNG
 * Delete - neither asserts nor provides evidence of notability JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable spamLihaas (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly not notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Canuck 89 (chat with me)
 * Delete per Canuck. Nobody Ent 11:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and per WP:SNOWBALL do it now. Clearly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (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.