Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Jenkins


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Jo Jenkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, and no reasonable claim to notability either. I expect there will be notices in trade magazines, but that won't show notability.  DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I declined DGG's speedy earlier because, to a Brit, the position at M&S seems an adequate claim of notability -- M&S has been the most important vendor of women's clothing and particularly lingerie in the UK for at least 50 years, and the column inches in the mainstream press devoted to its advertising strategies and declining/increasing market share are accordingly prodigious. There again, I'm not sure there is enough coverage of Jenkins' biography to merit an article at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I still concur with the fact there's still (regardless of any apparent claims of significance) nothing actually substantiating her own substance and convincing article; the article simply states the information about her work, that's basically it.... SwisterTwister   talk  03:25, 19 September 2016 (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.