Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Reed Kraus


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Jessica Reed Kraus
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

You all take a look at the page and tell me if it meets the criteria and you think it should stay up. Amaekuma (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Internet,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: This person does not pass any notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 19:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For 2 reasons. 1. she hasn’t a career outside of the Johnny Depp coverage 2. all of her mentions in these articles cited are in passing.
 * Delete

Amaekuma (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment you nominated an article you created? Nswix (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG as most articles made by Amaekuma. Ironically user nominated article he created himself lol. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable
 * Theknowhowman (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mildy support a editor seeking to delete their own work, but could do with a bit more explanation about what's going on here. (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not used to:
 * 1) Editors nominating articles they started
 * 2) Such a lack of deletion rationale


 * Don’t worry, you’ll understand in the time Amaekuma (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment If she broke the stories or had exclusive coverage, that is more notable than merely covering them.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep for now, reassess later. It's impotant to this discussion that we understand the creator's and nominator's reasoning and what "Don’t worry, you’ll understand in the time" implies before making a decision.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 22:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ms Chamaelum, where in the Wikipedia rules is it stated that a person can’t nominate a page they created for deletion? What this place here is meant for is your assessment of the page, i.e is the page bad enough to be deleted or good enough to be kept. If you can’t make that assessment, then feel free to skip the page, as it’s never a must for you in particular to vote. T for Thanks. Amaekuma (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not against the rules to nominate of course, but my assessment is that the page should be kept and reassessed later once we have the relevant information.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 00:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not against the rules to nominate your own page but you are supposed to come up with a rationale for nominating any article for deletion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trival Coverage showing a WP:REFBOMB - Newsweek sounds important but it's a less then one sentence of coverage. The Stork and Bean is an interview... on a blog.  CRJ - trivial coverage.  Meaww - trivial coverage.  Primary sources don't show notability.  Just not notable.  Denaar (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a ton of refs but most are not RSes. Out of the more reliable sources, most are passing mentions and none seem to go beyond routine coverage. Having said that, every nom should have a good rationale for deletion . BuySomeApples (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (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.