Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen

[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)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google scholar shows a highest citation of 9. Part of a promotional walled garden. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and above analysis. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find things to support WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Gusfriend (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Subject does not show notability. NMasiha (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:PROF HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts far too low for WP:PROF notability. Article claims he has published books but published reviews would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability and I found none. WP:GNG notability also not evident. Nomination diagnosis of a promotional walled garden appears to be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for wellness gurus. There's no indication that one could make a wiki-notability case for the subject as an author, a researcher, or anything else. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centeredness Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAP (health technology and life science). XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and reads like a promotional site. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:57, 17 August 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.