Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Hudson

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacqueline Hudson

Jacqueline Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Claims to notability are completely unverifiable. Vargas award: not one relevant Google hit[1] Jacqueline Hudson + Airbrush Action:not one google hit.[2] Jacqueline Hudson + Grammy: not one relevant google hit[3]. No google hits with music cares[4], nor with the correct name musicares[5].No mention of Hudson in the article about the MusiCares award for Aretha Franklin [6]. In fact, only one google hit for Jacqueline Hudson plus airbrush![7] So all the impressive links and claims in the article are unverifiable (online). Her own website, by the way, claims that she is featured in Airbrush Magazine, not Airbrush Action magazine. Fram 07:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity bio, Hubby's got a page now she wants one too. Article content doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO --WebHamster 08:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - To be honest, Google does bring up one or two hits, but the article still fails WP:BIO, so yes, it should be deleted. Lradrama 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a new member and editor of the wikipedia outlet, I beleieve those who claim to be excellent editors, should go a little easy on new articles. Firstly, I would like to see the verible reference on all wikipedia editors, and where they claim they have the right to delete pages. (Via your qualifications, and if you are a vilable employee to the site). And not just a bored self claimed writer with nothing better to do with their time. Notibly, those partcipating in making justifiable comments should be more encouraing to help new users edit their document with supportive claims. The article written on Jacqueline Hudson is quite notable. After reading it myself, I would cross examine the verible mistakes written in the article and delete them. I have looked up all relevant associations via all the artists. And I am well versed in the art arena. Having purused an article of airbrush action magazine, she has been listed. I would recommend who ever wrote the article also clean up the reference points.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacqueline_Hudson" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.204.209 (talk) 19:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

• Your credibility would be stronger if a) you weren't anonymous and signed your comments, b) you had more than 2 contributions that were independent of this article, i.e. your 2 comments are this comment and a copy of it to the article's talk page. --WebHamster 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy with no prejudice to recreation if verifiable sources can be added. At the moment there are no citations and no evidence that it is possible to add citations, so it shouldn't remain in the main namespace. Regarding the comment above about going easy on new articles, etc a response: No. Wikipedia isn't dogmatic, but it is organized. "New" articles that are being worked on CAN be worked on in any user's sandbox at any time. But if they are going to be part of the encyclopedia they are required to provide proof that something is true and important. Asking for this to be the case is not the work of "bored self claimed writer"s, it's the guidelines of Wikipedia, and every editor (including yourself) is asked to respect and follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. We do indeed encourage new users to improve articles, and the proof of this is that the first person to chime in on this AfD went to the trouble of doing several google searches to see if there was any evidence out there to improve the article. S/he found none, so presented that result here. That editor didn't knock the article down, that editor spent a little time trying to see what was possible. That's not discouragement, that's trying to help. (okay, long-winded comment over, apologies for length) -Markeer 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced biography of artist with some accomplishments, but accomplishment is not the same as notability. This isn't a matter of going easy on new articles; new or old, all material in Wikipedia is subject to the same rules and guidelines. Note that editors don't delete articles, administrators do, and in the case of an Articles for deletion nomination such as this one, only after consensus is reached. What we need is simple: attribution of notability through citation to independent and credible parties. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per will-researched nom. Freshacconci 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Modernist 16:24, 31 August 2007 (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.