Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Jurgen

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Jurgen

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

A search for information about this person that would enable them to meet the General Notability Guideline has failed. There's nothing but run-of-the-mill PR stuff, nothing that is independent or that meets the threshold of "Reliable, Independent Sources" that the GNG requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the discussion. I have zero financial or business motive to the presentation of celebrity and media figure biographies. I am a big fan of numerous new media, important individuals and would like to add their biographies to the library such that they meet a standard of legacy media and/or new media prominence or impact on public discussion. I have a longer list in mind, though I believe it's thoughtful. I have a background in media and studies therein and understand this landscape extremely well. I also believe I'm a thoughtful and concise writer for articles, as well as editor as I intend to continue past my initial fifteen or so to date. I do hope you'll consider all of this before deleting my article. I think there's some key areas of world events and influencers, especially to a younger audience, lacking on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Norman Spantz (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Norman Spantz: You have zero financial or business motive to promote Lex Jurgen? Come on now, don't be shy. This link says differently. [1]. Wikipedia DOES allow people with a Conflict of Interest to edit if they declare it. If they don't declare it, that's a whole other story. You should read WP:COI and see if you feel like being a bit more open. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I allowed the gentleman to use my name in a press release to gain bargaining advantage with his employer. I'm a fan only. I am often requested to do such things for digital media entertainers. I understand it seems odd. I could swear out some kind of declaration to this effect, but that's probably hyperbole. I am a fan of his work among many others who I believe merit entries on Wikipedia though digital is often overlooked. But zero dollars or cents. I'm not sure there's any financial benefit to him either. In fact, I'm certain he'd not do this himself. I'm a long time Wikipedia user, newer editor, past donor, I think I'm fairly familiar with the landscape, but I'll leave it for others to decide. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman Spantz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A great big bag of nothing. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, failed WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. Add more reliable sources and links Маргарита Бабовникова (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2018 (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.