Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian J. Smith


 * 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. After reading through the whole discussion, there's a strong consensus that GNG is not met, regardless of questions relating to the creator's COI/lack thereof. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Christian J. Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log )

completely and utterly non-notable individual sourced to puffed up fabricated press releases and blackhat SEO with no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And a source assess table for posterity.

Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the source assessment table, I now understand better why you considered the page for deletion. It helps to be more specific as to your reasons behind deleting a page rather than vaguely saying it's under-sourced/cited when the article includes several references. It was rather confusing, so thank you for the clarification. :) Milkyway677 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

However, I must say that your word choice "completely and utterly non-notable" sounds rather biased and as if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, or rather the person the article is written about. Then to respond saying,"black-hat SEO for vanity purposes. Typical attention-seeking entrepreneur". Are you kidding? If this is the attitude of editors to instead of trying to be reasonable, be hostile, derogatory, and potentially racist - then I am glad I found out quickly as I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. Thanks for giving me a behind the scenes glimpse of the toxic environment. Milkyway677 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with racism? We're talking about undisclosed paid spam here. Try to show a bit of interest in something else other than promoting your SEO client, and then we can talk. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What client are you talking about? I found this young fellow in Forbes Magazine, and took it upon myself to research him to see what his story was about. Sure enough I found plenty of news articles featuring him, so i took it upon myself to create a page for him.Milkyway677 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in Forbes? Because the article I found mentions him no where. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at the reference, do you see a Forbes article listed there? No, because he is the printed Forbes Magazine, the March 2020 issue. Are you trying to play games with me now or what? Milkyway677 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read it? What is the article title? Merely citing a page number and generic issue isn't a source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The reference also clearly lists the page number as well, page 91. Anyone who grabs a copy of the magazine can easily go to that page, for the Forbes Magazine March 2020 issue, and find it. Being that not even a full day has gone by yet and you immediately tried to delete the page, you clearly have not done your due diligence and you clearly are biased. You do not care to verify the reference, you'd rather just delete the page due to a conflict of interest which is obvious now. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, would you look at that, a single sentence quote from him as per his ig. That isn't coverage and it certainly isn't about him. And it's a paid for advert! Whodathunkit? Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We're not going to spill the beans here, but I'm pretty darn sure that and  can tell in an instant. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Warning Tell your boss or client that we don't need more entrepreneur spam on Wikipedia. It is blatantly obvious that this paid junk about brands, entrepreneurs to watch out for, and social media vanity has no place on a non-profit educational site. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to this, any experienced editor can likely spot this kind of paid editing without much difficulty. It helps that you made it blatantly obvious. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning paid editing, what are you talking about? Because I am diligent and went out of my way to create a professional page for an individual, your immediately go to is that it must be paid for? I bet you wouldn't say that if a create a new page for a non-individual, such as another topic. Also, quite frankly as far as I am concerned every article in regards to "individuals" (articles about people" can be considered paid editing. All it takes is to get a media source to repeat a statement in the news saying something about an individual, and then suddenly you can add that statement back to a wikipedia page and then cite that source. You are telling me that every page on an "individual" (person) on the wikipedia platform is free of such a devious act? Stop telling jokes. You guys must just be hating on whatever this guy accomplished. Thanks for making that blatantly obvious. Carry on. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Professional page?" Yikes. Take a peek here first. Next, add WP:ARTICLE to your reading list. We have encyclopedia articles here, not professional pages. You're thinking of LinkedIn. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble decoding what you're trying to convey here, so I don't think this is an in-house PR team. Where on earth did your cash-strapped client outsource to? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

When I say professional page, I mean that I spent hours looking at other encyclopedic articles such as celebrities for example, or similar pages about people that are traders or investors. I spent lots of time learning from the source coding and learning how to properly format/structure a wikipedia article, from the opening, to the info box, and how to properly format the reference. I always had trouble getting this right, but for the first time I actually got it when making a page for this fellow. So that's what I meant by a professional page, meaning not something that looks like it was poorly put together formatting wise. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

And still at this point, you continue to try and disrespect me. I've had just enough of your nonsense now. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Obvious paid-for corporate spam and black-hat SEO for vanity purposes. Typical attention-seeking entrepreneur trying to boost site traffic. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable 20-year-old businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

So for future reference, should new editors just stay away from creating new articles for people (individuals)? If anything this was all a good learning lesson for me, But honestly the way that the editors responded to me was rather disrespectful, and they made assumptions and ridiculed me rather than try to help. I don't like it, and I will have you reported. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Reported to where? —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

When I say report, I do not mean on wikipedia. I have family within the U.S Department of Justice, so I will speak with them and see what they have to say. You literally have a service badge stamped to your profile and should be an example to the community - but still, instead of trying to help you ignore my question - and focus on "reported to where" and then your fellow colleagues reply to me putting links to wikipedia pages about "stupid questions"??? Blatant disrespect. I'm done here. have a nice day. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I have made not made any "threats". What you editors have posted here is a complete defamation of character to the subject of the article in question "Christian J. Smith", and further more you have repeatedly disrespected me and it is you who should be blocked and checked for your character. What I said is within my right. Take care Milkyway677 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:LEGAL. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DOJ friends? This is run-of-the-mill trolling from the subcontinent. Try harder next time. Thanks for the free comedy. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean literally making comments such as "Where on earth did your cash-strapped client outsource to?" and you are trying to check "me" for my character? You guys are a joke. I appreciate the comedy. I'll forget this ever even happened. You guys aren't worth any more of my time. I tried to be reasonable, but you continuosly disrespected me anyway. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia is run on Volunteer effort, trying to run a massive encyclopedia. And you're being paid to write a single promotional page for one client, and waste our time in the process. We are biased against paid editors, I admit that, but your first step should've been to not do this in the first place. Paid editors, when they are present, are held to a very high standard and are expected to already be familiar with the site. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's true. We have zero tolerance for paid spammers, whether they're in NYC, a village in a tropical country, or the Milky Way. We're pretty nice to genuine newbies. However, in your case, it is clear as day that you've been paid to spam Wikipedia before. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If you could have kindly and simply said the subject in question did not meet the crtieria for a wikipedia article, and pointed to ways to improve it I would have said ok and moved on. But then you slander the subject in question, disrespect me, and then throw assumptionsthat I am being paid to edit on wikipedia. I am not being paid anything. I took on wikipedia as a new hobby to be more productive with my spare time, and do something that contributes in some way. You keep saying it's clear as day, but what evidence of that do you have? I am upset about this entire exchange because I am not being paid anything, but you guys keep saying it for some reason i guess to try and get this guys page deleted. If you want to delete the page fine by me, I honestly done care. It was the disrespect from the editors here that ticked me of, and subjected me to defending myself against such defamation of character, and slander. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I very literally said this in my nomination: completely and utterly non-notable individual sourced to puffed up fabricated press releases and blackhat SEO with no actual coverage. No one is defaming you and once more, WP:NLT. Read it, live it love it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you everyone again for the help. Sorry for all the trouble. With everything said, the least we could do is part ways in peace. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your other contributions. I took the time to reassess my stance (and looked at your contribution history), and would like to apologize for being hasty. The AfD reasoning still stands, but I think there's been a failing of WP:AGF here for everyone involved. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is an important rule, but we are dealing with persistent spammers here. The user's contribution history is a very classic and blatantly obvious pattern for outsourced paid editors, as you can see from the types of edits and other clues. The article's perfect American English and formatting are not consistent with the user's actual writing style. The chances of this kind of editing pattern coming from a genuine newbie with no COI are virtually zero. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. While I try to assume good faith, the creator is very defensive, and goes to the length of making legal threats to intimidate other editors. This does not strike me as an editor who found this young fellow in Forbes Magazine, and took it upon myself to research him. Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 17:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just on the AfD side of the G11 CSD. I don't think it's rescuable with rewrite because the result is likely to be an A7 CSD. I'm afraid it has to go. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Although I'd like to assume good faith, it never-the-less needs to go, and i've expressed this sentiment before. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - all references are either recycled press releases or don't seem to be reliable sources, the same for anything I could find myself. Shritwod (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete - Now I see the Accesswire mention. Yeah, looks like pure promotion, sorry. Whether or not the article creator is overly defensive or made legal threats doesn't have any bearing as to the notability of the article's subject. AfD isn't for cleanup and we shouldn't delete an article on a notable topic just because of the behavior of an editor. The Paula Henderson and Tyler Penske articles are enough to satisfy all points of the GNG. If there are issues with puffery or undue promotion, they can be resolved with editing. ♟♙ (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, no neither of those articles are reliable sources. It's completely faked, black hat SEO and press releases. Tyler Penske isn't even a real person, it's a stock image. Unless of course, you want to argue that VIP Media Group is a hybrid PR agency. Their diverse client base includes top-class entrepreneurs, public figures, influencers, and celebrities. isn't a blatant press release. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. @, I hate that I’m about to spill the bean a little, but your bludgeon (advocacy, since a vested interest is present), battleground mentality, moderate competency, cockiness & general rude comments, isn’t something a 5 day out Wikipedian would innately possess, that would be a trait of a problematic editor who is an old hand/quite familiar with the project & that right there easily gives you away. Like someone once told me, UPE editors aren’t master minds they are just plain stupid. Err, sorry if that was rude. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are no independent mention of this person except PR coverage. Bretalins (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to take a look at ? We've all been too patient by engaging him in conversation. Your approach would likely be different. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, the bludgeoning does nothing to help the argument.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, sources are pretty easily to identify as paid for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.