Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica London (2nd nomination)
For better or for worse, the essence of our |attribution policy is a requirement that |independent, reliable sources describe the topic in enough detail to support an encyclopedic article. |Notability is a guideline, but |attribution is a policy, and policy trumps guideline where, as here, the two arguably conflict. It doesn't matter if a topic is |notable enough to get a zillion Google hits if we're not able to |verify any information about it. And if all we have to rely on is a company's own web site amd materials, we can't really say much that's reliable about it. We can't possibly comply with POV as there's one and only one view on it available to us. If there's a problem, we'll never know about it. The requirement of independent coverage is built in to our core policies for a reason. This article lacks evidence of it. '''Delete
— User:Shirahadasha, 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:A||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:A||WP:N||WP:V||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Attribution)