Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayda Fransen

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayda Fransen

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

Is the deputy leader of a largely burnt-out protest group that holds about 3-4 marches a year that usually attract less than a couple hundred people. Paul Golding and Britain First are probably notable, so maybe a merge is appropriate. However, there is nothing on the subject to satisfy WP:GNG JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This page has an average of 2500 visits in a month. Jayda Fransen might use unorthodox means to spread her agenda but I believe that Wikipedia is neutral and about sharing knowledge. JohnTombs48 should therefore refrain from enforcing his/her person political opinions to others on Wikipedia. Thanks!Zotezangu (talk) 19:00, October 27, 2016.
- Clicks on wikipedia don't establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. If you want to talk about followers on a platfrom, Zotezangu, even if this does establish notability which it doesn't, the only platform she has a official account on personally is YouTube, and she holds scarcely more than a 1,000 followers there. I have an account on YouTube with more than this, does that mean I deserve an article? JohnTombs48 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly JohnTombs48, you have viewers on YouTube (if at all that is true) but no knows about you. Now help by developing the stub, it will boost your Wikipedia contribution. Zotezangu (talk) 19:16, October 27, 2016.
    - As if it matters, most veteran wikipedians will agree [1] [2] edit count doesn't really matter on wikipedia. One of the 11 articles I have written includes Hashtag United F.C. which the current addition all but 5 words of (99%) is my contribution, and said page sometimes gets upwards of 400 clicks a day, which is far more than this article. But that's irelevant to this discussion. You still have not proved how the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, which it needs to do to qualify for inclusion on wikipidea. JohnTombs48 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi JohnTombs48, If all you have written are 11 articles, then I cannot argue with you. That would be degrading myself as we are not on the same level. Zotezangu (talk) 13:25, October 28, 2016 (UTC).
      - Please note that Wikipedia editors are judged on the quality of their contributions and the depth of their understanding of Wikipedia policy and procedure, not on the raw edit count of how many articles they happen to have created. Many of Wikipedia's best contributors are task-gnomes who look after cleaning up typos and formatting problems in existing articles but have never directly created one themselves, and many of Wikipedia's worst contributors are article creators. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi MordeKyle, Since the article is a stab, could you assist in expanding it? Wikipedia is about collaboration. Thank you. Zotezangu (talk) 13:25, October 28, 2016 (UTC).
Delete. Being deputy leader of a small fringe political party is not, in and of itself, a free WP:NPOL pass that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing — but none of the sourcing here gets her over GNG at all. What we have here for "referencing" is primary sources and blog entries, not real coverage in real media — but real coverage in real media is what you need to actually get someone over the Wikipedia inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any useful content into Britain First. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Only Paul Golding qualifies, barely, and there's virtually nothing substantive to write about her. AddMore-III (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but there's very little material here and I'm not sure much more could be added without waffling. Perhaps in a few years the subject might be notable but not as it stands. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (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.