Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Jackson

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. ✗plicit 11:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Jackson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of this article seems to be a non-notable internet influencer who has paid for coverage. Based on a spot-check of the sources, I found most of them to be entirely irrelevant or incorrectly cited. Just about every source in this article is suspicious. I suspect that the article was created by a paid editing service to misrepresent the notability of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should withdraw this AfD. Notability is shown by multiple chart placements. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, Most of the charts are from Music Week and are not UK's national chart so don't count for WP:MUSIC. The other is just another sub chart. This whole thing looks like PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of advertorial, tabloid, primary and such. Article history has too much SPAs writing promo. Wikipedia is not here for promotion. There is a lack of coverage in good sources. Billboard charting is just one of a plethora of sub charts, not the countries main chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia only ascribes notability per WP:NMUSIC #2 to IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard or the UK's Official Charts Company, and not on the basis of just any randoid WP:BADCHART you can find — which means nothing stated here passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing is very overdependent on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but this as written isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 27 October 2021 (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.