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!} 23:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse S. Greever[edit]

Jesse S. Greever (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)

This biography of a living person has quite an interesting history. Created by User:Tisafire as his only contribution to the encyclopaedia, it was moved to mainspace by User:Accidental-author. I note that according to the article, at the time of creation the article subject maintained a blog called The Accidental Author, although it now seems to belong to one Christopher Slater. This leads me to suspect the possibility of a conflict of interest, and I feel the article is somewhat promotionally written, and I would question whether Mr Greever is really notable as an author. —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment*Delete I'll take it a step further and say that a conflict of interest here is much more than suspect, and the article is definitely written in a promotional tone. I'm going to refrain from !voting for now to see if there's notability, but I think at bear minimum, we're looking at an explosion. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as not notable, unsourced BLP. Of the twelve sources currently provided, eleven are to a page where you can buy their writing (Amazon, Untreed - publisher's site, Sony eBooks), only one promises to direct to some sort of review. But (1) it reverts to a generic review main page, and offers no search facility; (2) is run by a single individual it seems, of unverified credibility or audience; (3) discloses that some links are affiliate links, providing a commission for sales referred. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article that lacks sources that discuss the subject in detail that are independent of the subject and reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 24 February 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.