Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Fowler

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. Clear consensus--promotional article DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fowler

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

The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability from reliable independent sources. Fowler is mentioned just once in only one of the references listed. There is insufficient evidence to justify an article; it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). WWGB (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I can't find anything in searches that is not self-published or even minimally significant. This is a resumé. Wikipelli ^Talk 08:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me it reads as somewhat more of an advert than a CV. I wouldn't expect someone writing a CV to "share her passion and experience" - that's PR talk. Definitely not encyclopaedic as it stands, whatever the result of this discussion. She probably does a very good job in a very tricky area of investigation, and a fictionalised (for obvious reasons...) version of her exploits would probably sell well, but like police and private detectives, and the vast majority of real-life secret agents (the uncaught ones), this is not a profession where the unmasker gets the publicity and coverage. It's the perpetrators that are known widely. I'm not falling into the stereotype trap here - one accountant I knew was the life and soul of any party, and if there wasn't a party, she'd have a mini-party going in minutes. If better coverage appeared here, I'd be quite happy to advise over the de-PRing of the article to NPOV standards. Lacking the coverage of the subject rather than the case - or even connecting the subject to the case, I'm afraid it's not for us. Peridon (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. Doesn't meet WP:GNG as well. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 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.