Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datari Turner (3rd nomination)

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. Unanimous consensus to delete, salting Alex Shih (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner

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

Sigh, here we are again. Paid promotional piece of a borderline notable subject that tried again at AfC. This is just a CV that exists to promote the subject. He is borderline notable at best. When Wikipedia is the most significant coverage you have ever received (as it is in this case), then you should not have an article, even if you can afford to pay for one. If anything, the current version makes even less of a claim to being halfway important as the original version deleted a few months back. No reason to keep it this time around either. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - page already deleted before. Twice, even. Adding speedy deletion under WP:G4 and recommending a block of the creator. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is eligible for G4 because the draft was an independent page history and is significantly different from the previous deleted versions. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I still believe this falls under G4 as it is using the same name as the previous 6 pages, and has dependent page history (albeit the older del. version is in strikeout). Besides, a speedy delete gets this over with quicker, right? Kirbanzo (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harm this going through AfD now that it is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~True, but let's leave the speedy delete there in case an admin thinks G4 applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
        Wasn't aware Joe was an admin. I apologize. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Tony just beat me to nominating. This article has been deleted and recreated six times, representing an astonishing seven year campaign by the subject to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The last AfD was less than three months ago, and it has been salted after the last two deletions, and yet here we are again. That a paid editor has ignored the community consensus and pushed it through AfC is unfortunately not surprising – after all his paycheck depends on it. But Turner was not notable last time and he isn't notable now. The sources added are the same mix of low quality advertorials, promotional interviews, and trivial mentions that we saw last time. I'm not sure what the best way to stop yet more volunteer time being wasted on this is—salting the article, salting the draft, a TBAN for JacobPace—but whatever it is, we should do it. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 6 times over 7 years?! This is worse than I thought. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would definitely appreciate more input on this discussion by other users on Wikipedia. I'm not really sure what I did wrong here. This article was created and submitted as I was told to without directly setting it live in the mainspace. JacobPace (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Subject fails WP:NBIO so we deleted it - and paid editors recreated it several times. If you are a paid editor, I recommend you disclose it, but if you are unpaid, please refrain from creating pages that have already been deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kirbanzo, no offense, but you really need to look at the situation before commenting. JacobPace has declared a connection in multiple places, including the article talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Newbie mistake. Sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I don't understand, Kirbanzo. He is the creator of several notable TV shows and films. JacobPace (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue isn't the declared paid status, the issue is that the article only exist to promote the subject. Just because it is sent through AfC does not mean that it is not promotional, nor does it mean that the community will decide it is notable. The issues here are twofold: Jacob took on a client who has no place on Wikipedia because he isn't important enough, and the article is only a CV that tells is minor facts about a non-notable biography in order to make the subject seem important. Those are individually good reasons for deletion, regardless of following the TOU. Re: creation of notable things: notability isn't inherited. The question is the subject himself, not what he has touched. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't have said it better myself. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @JacobPace: No doubt you were told that, as a paid editor, you have to put any new articles through AfC. But who told you it would be a good idea to recreate Datari Turner? The fact that a dozen or so editors have previously agreed that he isn't a suitable for inclusion ought to have been a hint that it wasn't wise. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Joe Roe: Makes sense. This was just an effort to keep the client happy but sure, this makes sense after seeing the consensus here. My question is this: if paid contribution is allowed yet 'promotional pieces' are not, what is the solution to that? Is a paid contribution not promotional in nature? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @JacobPace: You know, I don't think I've ever heard a more succinct explanation of why paid editing shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict × 2) - reading through the article, I fail to see any information on this person which confers notability to our usual standards, seemingly WP:NBIO in this case, perhaps more specifically WP:NMODEL or WP:FILMMAKER. Notability is not inherited nor can it be purchased. Well, okay, it can be purchased, but not in this manner. I applaud the author's efforts to do all the right things but unfortunately some topics are simply not suitable for the encyclopedia, and this individual is one of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More or less a re-tread of my comment from the second AfD applied to more-or-less a re-tread of the last incarnation of this article. Fails WP:NBIO and most importantly WP:NOTINHERITED. Take this sentence for example "In 2007, Turner was the spokesmodel for Jay-Z's clothing line, Rocawear." Lines like these are clearly intended to draw a thread of notability between notable subjects and Datari Turner. Given that this article has been deleted 6 times (with the implication that Turner of some other organization desperately wants him to have a Wikipedia article), let me recommend that we end this farce with a dose of salt and prevent this article from being re-created in perpetuity.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was a bit cautious while reviewing this draft as I went through all the previous discussions and controversies. I suggested the creator to fix the copyright issues as well. Besides, I requested Primefac to un-salt it so it can be approved. All because it seems to pass WP:GNG now. I think we would have treated the subject differently if it would not have paid influence on it. However, the subject of the article and its creator trying desperately for their Wikipedia article should not affect our assessment in general. Neither its previous deletions should affect our views. At the moment, the subject has significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter. And that is why I approved it. Just wanted to explain my intention behind approving it. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we should treat it differently: it helps inform promotional intent, which is the whole point of the disclosure process: to see if it violates our policies, which we know it does, see WP:NOTSPAM. The GNG doesn’t matter, as N required passage of NOT as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTSPAM. Sometimes, it becomes hard to arrive at an objective assessment. One policy advocates something and then other something else. Thank you for the information though. I am more educated now :) Dial911 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- For goodness sake, we the English writing Wikipedians of the world decided that this article was not notable a mere three months ago. I believe that we should drop the stick and bury it under a mountain of salt along with the poor overly beaten dead horse. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course – this is a paid advertisement and Wikipedia does not allow advertisement. Oh, and the person isn't notable either – where is the in-depth coverage in substantial reliable sources (not the Hollywood Reporter for sure, that's just a reprint of a press-release, also reprinted by Variety)? Dial911 has clearly acted thoughtfully and completely in good faith, so I don't want to criticise; but this could have been declined as "what Wikipedia is not". If all AfC reviewers routinely declined promotional ~~articles~~ submissions on those grounds we'd have fewer of these discussions, and could perhaps get on with improving our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I triggered a fuss by approving it. I am sorry for that. Dial911 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, I don't think you should be – you made the call that you thought was right at the time, and that's all any of us can hope to do. You were perhaps not as familiar with the history of this editor as some us are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, this is a subject that led to an ArbCom case which got an admin desysoped, which is why there are so many people commenting on an obscure biography AfD. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers, you weren't aware of the history and that you'd likely be triggering another AfD with a bit of drama. Just in the future remember that WP:N also requires passage of WP:NOT in addition to the GNG. Make it a learning experience

. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, Lesson learnt. Will not forget to check for WP:NOT besides GNG. Thank you

. Dial911 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to engage in self-promotion. It is not a web hosting service. It is an encyclopedia, where we only cover notable subjects. Turner fails all applicable notability guidelines and the continued attempts to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete Blatantly promotional material.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - re-adding speedy delete under WP:G11 due to concerns over eligbility for said criteria being raised. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ - Admin thought otherwise about WP:G11 eligibility (don't know why, a lot of people agree it is a case), so speedy delete was removed. Still strongly recommend deletion. May re-add later. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second vote by Kirbanzo. Kirbanzo please allow the AfD to run its course, it seems the a snow delete is likely, no need for unseemly haste.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only wanting haste as this is just the latest of several times this article has been deleted over seven years. I want this over with as soon as possible as this is basically a WP:SALT argument at this point. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Speedy deleting at this point is not a strong enough solution. A nice long vote will seal this off from recreation. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt My tuppence worth. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (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.