Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean M Nelson

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean M Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, borderline WP:A7 case. The currently-cited sources are IMDb and an unbylined, hyperbolicly promotional piece ([1]). I was not able to find any additional coverage online, having searched for both the middle-initial and no-middle-initial form of the subject's name plus other keywords on DuckDuckGo and ProQuest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Haiti, and New Jersey. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also could not find anything (aside from press releases and other publications with the same copy-and-pasted promotional material on IMDb and the londonfm site). Does not meet the GNG. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello all. Am still building more information about Jean M Nelson and I would request that the page should not be deleted. More informations loading on a weekly basis and soon you will have enough to allow it stay. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugo M. Simon (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete paid for vanity spam about a non-notable artist sourced to the usual blackhat SEO and nothing in the way of actual RS is available. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is visible online but in sources that are clearly paid promo announcements or self-created puff pieces. Independent and impartial journalists would not say things like "certainly one of the most forward-thinking personalities within today's music and film industries" ([2]), "An Inspirational Rising Star Among Our Generation" ([3]), or "Impact of personal experiences on professional excellence!" ([4]). Kudos to his hard-working publicist, who has mastered the art of repeating the same basic biographical information with well-placed peacock words across the Internet. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place like Who's who where you can get included by paying for being included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search of Google shows nothing that would support a claim of notability and there's nothing meaningful in the artice itself. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn’t seem to meet GNG. DingleJick Talk 17:36, 25 July 2022 (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.