Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila 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. There is a dissenting "keep" here, but I see nothing to refute Beccaynr's analysis about the unreliability of the sourcing. Having looked at the article, the WP:BLP1E issue also has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Leila Jenkins

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

Page about me is inaccurate causing it to be libelous. I am not an investment counselor, I am a retired cybersecurity professional. The RI company Locke Capital Management was closed in 2008. I was the wrongful target of an SEC civil lawsuit 15 years ago due to required compliance records for a large Swiss client being destroyed by a then business partner who was Chief Operating Officer. The SEC won a summary judgment in a process that did not see the truthful mitigating evidence because evidence is not considered in a summary judgement and the Defendants could not afford legal representation which would have directed the outcome of the case appropriately. The Wikipedia page also suggests that I was involved with passport fraud. I was advised to change my name on my passport due to marriage when it came up for renewal and it was time to apply for my UK visa. I did nothing inappropriate in making an application for a new passport in November 2009. However and most unfortunately, false documents containing information unbeknownst to me were found later with my application and on my former business partner's computer during a subsequent government search. That information was wrongly attributed to me due to prosecutorial misconduct. When the government's mistake was discovered during the appeal process, the appeal was disallowed for being filed in the wrong legal format. As defendant I had no legal counsel for advice on how to file the appeal.

Please help me by deleting this page. I don't know who put it up or why but it was done recently - not 15 years ago. I remain a victim of ID Theft and Fraud perpetrated by the former business partner who created the above legal issues, and is now teamed up with my angry sister. During the time I had a restraining order against my sister, she went to a bank in Rhode Island, gave them false information about me, and bullied them into closing one of my accounts and giving the money to her. I just want the horrible actions still ongoing in my life to stop. Deleting this page would be extremely helpful. I am not important enough to appear at all in Wikipedia. 107.242.117.54 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women,  and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nomination made on behalf of an IP, which was copied from Special:PermaLink/1112305650. I make no claims or statements about the identity of the nominator. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Washington, D.C..  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Legal woes aside, seems like a well-documented article, most are RS. Interesting history of the individual. Right or wrong, so long as RS are used, we can keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is based mostly on a press release, wedding announcements, and primary sources, and the investigations section appears to give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view per WP:BLP1E. I removed the minimally-sourced passport allegation per WP:BLPCRIME because the subject of this article does not appear to be a public figure. WP:GNG/WP:BASIC does not appear to be adequately supported with significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, including based on my own online search. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Radical edit required: This article only gives weight to the legal processes surrounding Locke. There are almost no media references that comment upon Jenkins, though formal documents confirm her directorship(s) and the legal processes themseves. Indeed, some are to media home pages where she is not mentioned, and a couple are dead links. At present this has the feeling of a page constructed to attack Jenkins, masquerading as an article. It does appear that Jenkins may be notable in a Wikipedia sense, however. Following a radical edit we will start to see what is what. Because I believe Jenkins to be inherently notable, I default to Keep, certainly at present 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , if there "are almost no media references that comment upon Jenkins", what independent and reliable secondary sources support notability? Beccaynr (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As an update, with thanks to for highlighting the poor quality of the sourcing in the article, I have attempted to radically edit the article, and it appears that no amount of editing can overcome the lack of notability for this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr Thank you for your edits. I can also see no RS references. I wonder that I ever could. I am conflicted. I have not altered my 'Keep' !vote because something in my water suggests to me that Jenkins is notable. Even with useless references she just needs to be notable.
 * The conflict is that I wish to accede to "someone's" request to take an allegedly incorrect article down, plus I have no idea that the IP is Jenkins, and I also see what verges on a legal threat in the nomination. Stating that an article is libellous suggests action against the alleged libel may be taken or may be threatened. I do not like to see any person prosper from legal threats, but nor do I wish to see a genuine attack page remain here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your follow up, - per WP:NLT, It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat, and less charged wording by the nominator would best serve this discussion. With our current inability to confirm their identity, and what seem to be some errant claims about the legal process generally in the nomination statement, I focused on apparent assertions of a lack of notability and (poorly-phrased) WP:BLP policy concerns, although WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME may also be relevant to consider with regard to whether any inherent notability can be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr Perhaps I am influenced by the lack of ability to confirm the requestor, coupled with an aversion to legal threats, real or implied. I do not feel we should accede to a random IP;s deletion request.
 * Oddly, the IP is creating the Streisand effect in a small way here, which is interesting 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no objection to a procedural close of this discussion (without prejudice to a future nomination) due to what could be reasonably understood as a legal threat in the nomination statement. Beccaynr (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr An uninvolved editor, perhaps admin, should do that. I would support that as a move. Something here has a nasty smell about it, and I am unsure whether it is the article as was, or the nomination. I think it is a useful suggestion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not stop another administrator from closing this, but I will say as the opening administrator that if I had found the "libelous" claim to be anything approaching a legal threat I would have simply blocked the IP and not started this discussion. I believe that a lot of people misunderstand the term, and simply use it to display their displeasure with the current situation (e.g. I have seen some VRTS tickets claim that an incorrect DOB was libellous). Regarding the identity of the IP - if someone points out the inaccuracies in a page, and asks that it be deleted, I do not think it is our job to determine whether they are who they say they are; that aspect really only comes into play for close decisions via WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. A clear "delete" or "keep" result will happen regardless of who nominated the page in the first place. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am now more comfortable with this reaching whatever final outcome it reaches. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I have no doubt you would have blocked, and I was referencing BLPREQUESTDELETE too obliquely with regard to the identity issue in my comment above. As this AfD discussion developed, I became concerned about whether the formation of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS would be impaired to the point that we should just start over, because of the potential for the nomination statement to create an undue influence on the discussion, and perhaps because of dynamics specific to AfD. My thought was if we develop a local consensus of !voters uncomfortable with assessing the article, then that may support a procedural close and starting a new discussion. My neverending to-do list includes renominating AfDs with apparent procedural issues, and I figured I could add this one to the list. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have considered long and hard and researched Jenkins thoroughly. I can find no sources that refer to anything other than the scandal. It is clear that this took place, the the circunstances surrounding Jenkins in it are less clear. That scandal may itself be worthy of an article (caused by the Streisand effect) but Jenkins is not. She appears to be WP:BLP1E and thus I cannot in all conscience, after research, opine nther than Delete as failing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)