Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton

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 redirect to Rigby & Peller. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DEL#REASON- subject fails to meet notability guidelines for people in general - not "the subject of the subject of multiple published secondary sources". Also does not meet the critera for WP:CREATIVE nor WP:ENTERTAINER JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a little searching, and Rigby & Peller definitely does seem to be notable--June Kenton (her mother?) does too. If those were created, some of the article's content could be merged to those. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete - she seems to be quoted a bit, but not to have third parties write about her. I dont think she has passed the point where the number of times she is quoted leads to a sort of de facto coronation as "notable expert".-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC) EDIT: support the redirect to Rigby & Peller per BlackKite. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI - See also this recent request for paid editing on this article. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability is based on whether there is significant third party coverage about the subject that can be presented in a NPOV manner. i am not sure what the above link has to do with this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused too, how much would I get paid for a keep vote? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh. i did not even consider that. only the fact that if kept, careful watch should be kept for POv editing, but you are right, it has implications here too. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Of course, published quotes by the subject are explicitly debarred as any gauge of notability of the subject. So far, I'm not seeing any notability guideline under which an article can be sustained here, quite aside from the COI issue. Ravenswing 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to a redirect as below. Ravenswing 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rigby & Peller. It is noticeable that every single Google News hit for her includes the phrase "of Rigby & Peller". However, she pops up as a talking head on TV occasionally and as such her name is a reasonable search term. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rigby & Peller. That appears to be an appropriate redirect target. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As nominator. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Mabalu (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She's done enough on her own since leaving Rigby & Peller to have her own notability. If reliable sources exist that cover her in sufficient detail then WP:N is satisfied. The fact that the article was likely created by someone in exchage for payment should not affect the subject's actual notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and what exactly has she done? been quoted a few times in the newspapers. and ....? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I thought she might well be notable to begin with, but as per usual her "resume" turns out to be overstated; for example the Sky TV series that she "presented" in 2006 turns out to be presented by someone else, and she merely interviews people on the street. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rigby & Peller, although deletion would probably be appropriate, she is mentioned in the Rigby & Peller article as a scion of the family. This is merely a vanity article for someone who wants to establish street cred in entertainment/media, and having a Wikipedia article leads to excellent real world "SEO." --HidariMigi (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Not notable apart from as per User:HidariMigi's reasons above. Vanity article. Stronach (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.