Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane DS

Jane_DS

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

Subject is not notable. There are no secondary references on page. The article doesn't assert notability. Momo Hemo (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, I'd say. Not notable. ~~SIS~~ 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable. One of the most popular members of the lifecasting genre. Thought of by Justin.tv staff as one of the premier drawing points. Interviewed by or featured on/in multiple web magazines and think tanks (i.e. The Silicon Alley Insider, a webzine with over 1,000,000 monthly global views, worth noting she's featured multiple times on this site, the Institute for the Future, and is scheduled to be involved in an upcoming event forum on the future of internet video moderated by journalists from Boing Boing). Viewership numbers are on par with fellow lifecasters iJustine, Sarah Austin and Lisa Batey.

Worth noting, as far as this discussion goes, is Momo (the author of the deletion issue) having a personal grudge with Jane. This stims from Jane explaining a recent ankle injury while Momo wanted her attention, as Jane continued to explain her injury, Momo made some derogatory comments, the next day he put forward this deletion request. Momo actually has some what of a reputation on JTV. Not to inject personal points into a reasoned voted, but his personal biases should be noted. As for the notability of my personal articles, my Wikipedia work is well thought of by members of the sports community and North Carolina community. I've had a hand in over 1000 notable articles. BobbyAFC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal grudge with the subject whatsoever nor do I have a reputation on JTV seeing as how I've been on there for approximately a week and a half. I was searching wikipedia for information on the logitech quickcam pro 9000 and Jane_DS was one of the three results listed. The main reason why I listed the article is because it does not assert notability nor does it list and reliable secondary reference, and it has been in existence long enough that the article should have those. Please don't take this as a personal attack again you or Jane, and I encourage you to put reliable references in and assert notability so that this fails.Momo Hemo (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD. Agree with strikeout_sister. Personal grudges are irrelevant here. The article has no external sources aside from self-references. It fails WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]