Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Redding (2nd 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. ✗plicit 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Redding

[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)

This page has had many issues for a long time. The most important, as I see it, are violating the following guidelines: WP:PROMOTION and WP:GNG.

WP:PROMOTION: The article is written in an excessively favorable way about its subject. Redding is described as a "polymath" with no basis for such a description, and the article even lists his "peak chart positions."
WP:GNG: Redding does not have sufficient and lasting notability to warrant a Wikiepdia page. Many of the sources are from his own outlets and presented in a misleading way to overstate their influence.

These reasons are closely linked, and they cannot be remedied because the fundamental purpose of this article seems to be Redding's self-promotion. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone who has done as much as Mr. Redding should be deleted, I don't think that the world needs less black and brown heroes. That's what deleting this page would do. Redding page has almost 100 cites. The most latest is the Washington Post, some of you are just making this personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpolk (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:PROMOTION:

EWBlyden 85 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The last time this was discussed at AfD was in 2006 when inclusion standards were far, far more lax, so for anyone reading this, I don't think it being a '2nd nomination' should bias your view coming into this discussion. Second, I think Redding News Review should also be looked at for deletion, as should Talkers Magazine (mentioned in the article). I think Rob Redding might possibly meet notability guidelines, but a) it's impossible to tell with how WP:REFBOMBed this article is to hell and back, and b) the article needs to be cut drastically. The article in its current state is a disgusting abuse of the project to promote an artist. Honestly, even if he does end up meeting notability guidelines, I support WP:TNT or something similar thereto. There's nothing redeeming here, and the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like it's been copy/pasted from http://robredding.com/ click on about > robe redding bio. The actual source is https://tiger-wrasse-tfmt.squarespace.com/rob-redding-bio (it's a frame). Tag as unambiguous copyvio and be done with it. If someone who is not Redding or affiliated with him wants to start over, I can quickly grab all the sources ever used in the article and archive them. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the copy/paste from his site, is it somewhere in the article history? JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try [1] or [2] Vexations (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was using old revision and trying to match it with an archived version of his website, which earwig did not like. Do we know for sure that his squarespace/personal site language predates its use on wiki? JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it would be unusual to copy one's bio from Wikipedia to one's own website, wouldn't it? Vexations (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. The sourcing appears quite weak. Curiocurio (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but trivia and promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. FMSky (talk) 00:51, 16 January 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.