Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephon Hendricks

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Stephon Hendricks}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephon_Hendricks Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Stephon Hendricks}})

paid for spam about a non notable author/musician/"traveler" sourced exclusively to black hat seo sites. Praxidicae (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Page was initially created by a new editor User:Hesevie Wers with little experience on 19th of August 2020, "Praxidicae" tagged it for Speedy "G11" on the 20th of August. But User:Bradv removed the "G11" tag saying it is "not a G11; will move to draft so someone can check the sources". See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephon_Hendricks&action=history page history]. I came along today, 3rd September, checked the references, removed inappropriate ones and fixed the formatting in line with what User:Bradv suggested. I also toned down the page to suit WP:NPOV. I also updated the categories. Then moved the draft back to Mainspace. I am surprised to see it tagged for AFD by "Praxidicae" again.

I spent time to check each of the references while fixing them. Many of them are from news-related sources. So, I believe the topic meets WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Hoping to hear from other editors. Thanks.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

::We don't need a play by play of the history, anyone can see it. However, if you reviewed the sources, you'd be able to identify that more than half of them are black hat SEO spam sources and not independent coverage as required for notability. You shouldn't be "reviewing" drafts. Further, your inability to distinguish between deletion methods, specifically CSD and AFD lead me to believe you lack the experience to be deciding these things anyway, since I've never once sent this to AFD until today. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – a look through the sources shows this subject simply does not meet our standards for inclusion. The article is sourced primarily to websites that will write about anyone for the right fee, and none of the content used to write this article has been subjected to any editorial oversight. I was hoping when I draftified it that someone would find some better sources, but those sources simply do not exist. – bradv🍁 14:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per Brad V. 2001:569:74D2:A800:6C73:D515:A1D6:AD61 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Nearly all of the references here are to WordPress blogs rather than reliable sources — we require coverage in real media, not just any random blog that exists, to deem a person notable. In addition, I've already had to remove a couple of other sources from the article — both of his books were referenced solely to their presence on Amazon.com (which is not notability-making sourcing for a writer, as we require media coverage about the books, not just the books metaverifying their own existence on an online bookstore, to deem a person notable as a writer), and one source literally just briefly namechecked his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article that was not about him, and thus wasn't support for his notability either. The few sources left that are from real media are not sufficient coverage to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. As always, we're looking for independent, externally validated verification of his importance, such as noteworthy literary or music awards and/or independent critical analysis of his work's creative significance, not just verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I blocked the author for this. MER-C 09:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.