Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinkleberry
Almost the canonical vanity article. And we have no evidence that this actually is an 18-year old girl, before people start getting soppy. Uncle G 19:41, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
- Delete, Vanity, and it's unverified. Could be userfied but there's no such user. So the big mystery remains, where is the username referred to in the article. Does it matter at this point? Only time will tell. Inter 20:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Mystery solved: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jinkleberry/ and http://www.geocities.com/jinkleberry Still not encyclopedic, even if as nicknames go it's pretty cute. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. But, yes, I'm going to get soppy. I think it's reasonably likely that Jinkleberry is exactly whom she says she is, both in the article and here (where she apparently discloses just about everything about herself but her telephone number and mother's maiden name. Jink, if you read this, please be more discreet about what you publish about your personal identity online). I don't feel the slightest compunction about deleting articles that are basically resumes of self-promoting twenty-somethings, but I wish I knew how to be kinder about vanity articles from teen-aged newbies. Still, I don't know how you can be clearer than "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy)" which appears over the edit box whenever you create a page. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What Dpbsmith said. 715 hits for just some young blogger--scary. Niteowlneils 23:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) 00:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, blog vanity. Wyss 22:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Dont Delete, 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 There is no evidence to suggest that this is a vanity or that it has been written by Jinkleberry herself. Many website owners, for example Maddox, have been added to wikipedia without deletion.