Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Red

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable DJ & radio personality who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - I've tagged this with G11. Seems unambiguously promotional to me. It was inappropriately created in mainspace by a paid editor after a previous version was draftified. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed the Speedy Delete tag, since this was already listed at AFD and should go through the process here. These are two different processes. AFD is a discussion and consensus. Speedy Delete does not allow for discussion. WP:PAID is allowed at Wikipedia if proper disclosure is posted on the editor's user page.. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the page has an odd history - it was initially tagged for A7 and G11 by another user, then the nom sent it to AfD one minute after the CSD tagging, presumably not having seen the tags - then the author blanked the page, so the CSD tagger removed their tags, and then someone restored the article because it was at AfD. I think the initial CSD tagging was correct and it was only removed because of a technicality. However, if it would be better for this to go through AfD then that's fine. (And while paid editing is allowed, paid editors are instructed to submit drafts through AfC and not create articles directly in mainspace, per WP:Conflict of interest#Paid editing). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SpicyMilkBoy & Maile66 sigh, it was silly me tbh. Lapablo correctly placed a speedy delete tag on the page (which it very well qualifies for) at the exact same time I opened an AFD for it. Both actions occurred simultaneously. Sorry for the mix up & all. In the end it is a promotional piece for a non notable subject.Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a lot of actions that need to be cleared up here. Apparently @Lapablo: moved the article to Draft:Jeremiah Red without leaving a redirect, so there are two versions. Then @Justlettersandnumbers: blocked @Runawaytonight:, so the author is not able to reply here, but has filed an appeal for unblock. A whole lot of people got involved in this, before any one part of it ran its course. Perhaps the first step should be to see how the unblock appeal plays out. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes i had moved the article to Draftspace and issued a notice on the authors talk page but minutes later the same copy of the article was republished by the author in mainspace. When i had found out that it was recreated i tagged it with CSD G11 at the same time an editor also took it to AFD hence i had to withdraw the speedy tag. 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Lapablo (talk)

• Comment. Yes, Maile66, I blocked the editor for the combination of promotional editing with a promotional username implying shared use – which includes several years of undisclosed paid contributions (the editor claims to be "a boutique creative service company catered to various brands in the nightlife industry"). I see no reason to believe that this page is not more of the same, although no disclosure has been made, and thus a violation of our Terms of Use. Note: I've had to remove a good deal of the content from it, as it was copied directly from the sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2019 (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.