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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Jerome (author)[edit]

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

Created by a blocked, likely paid-editor sockmaster and group account, I'd like to ask that the notability be considered carefully, as it's not entirely clear if this author is notable, or, if he is, what for. 86.** IP (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems almost impressive at first glance, but all it comes down to is two self-published books, two mentions in one local paper, and some non-notable awards. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoctorKubla. Considered carefully, a check of Google books and Google news reveals no new sources to confer basic notability for a person (though a couple Passing mentions and a duplicate to the OC Register article). Also fails WP:AUTHOR. Valfontis (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Paid editing is not a deletion criterion, as far as I know. Can you direct us to the guideline that says it is? Per WP:ATTP, please address the article, not the editor--what policy based concerns about the article's content do you have? Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOTADVERTISING. It's hard to say that hiring a PR flack to put something on Wikipedia isn't advertising. Anyway, though, this one also has major notability issues. 86.** IP (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was addressing UtherSRG (should have indented), as you had already asked us to consider notability carefully, which I did. But thank you. I hate spam, but since this isn't a !vote, we have to argue here based on policy and guidelines. Sometimes it is possible to salvage something useable from a spammy article. Valfontis (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR. Put aside WP:ATTP for the moment. Is my logic above sound? Do we want to encourage paid writers and their bias, or do we want to weed them out? While I agree that most of the time, we can ignore the author, but when doing so threatens the foundation of the project, we most certainly can not. If the subject is notable, there will, in time, be a proper article written by a proper author. Until then, we should feel free to discourage improper authors from writing articles, because to do otherwise encourages improper articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2012 (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.