Deletion of Jess C Scott

Comment: Found zero hits on gnews.  All references are to SPS'es.  Fail  which requires at a minimum "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."   Until such references exist the article should be and remain deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Per the above; no news hits, no reliable sources, no pass on GNG or WP:AUTHOR.  That being said, if anyone wants to overhaul WP:BIO to include self-published sources, I commend them to the appropriate talk pages to discuss the same and lobby for consensus to reflect their POV.  Until that happens, we'll have to go with the current requirements of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)?" 'Fraid so. If you can show reliable sources to indicate wider spread coverage, maybe, As it stands, the refs list isn't worth tuppence. Have a look at  to see what is required. As to Wikipedia, it's self-publishing - in a way. It is moderated and supervised by thousands of people, whereas self-publishing of books is governed solely by the funds available. Self-published books can become notable - or be taken up by the 'mainstream' publishers - but it's usually a long-term process or a wild exception. There's no evidence here of either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:GNG)