Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derick goff


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Derick goff

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Self-promotional article by self-published (Publish America) author. No independent evidence of notability apart from their own promotional pronouncements elsewhere on the Web. Article previously speedy deleted with BLP problems under several aliases. The editor is on their third account, all blocked.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I was trying to help him with references; I didn't realize he'd tried three times before with different accounts. Pianotech (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all wrong with helping out a new editor with references; quite the opposite.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's too bad that an article's talk page also goes away when the article is deleted, since it sometimes contains helpful information should the editor want to try resubmitting an article. Pianotech (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops - restored. I'd speedy-deleted the article and reconsidered, forgot to restore the talk page.   Acroterion  (talk)  15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no independent coverage about this author. I cleaned the markup on the references provided in the article, however none of them is a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, most of the refs are free press release things, but I'm not sure about this one. It's different than the others, but the style in which it's written and some of the spelling make me pause. Pianotech (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - It's not a reliable sources. Check the site's home page which declares "Sign up and Submit your Article" and has a button below it labelled "Submit free press release : see your news here immediately."
 * Not an RS, and apart from that, the use of apostrophes and general orthography matches Goff/Rawr's writing style.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Didn't see that. The weird spelling and writing style did catch my eye, but I didn't see that that was another press release site.Pianotech (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the "sources" appended to the article share the same writing style, and all are derived from post-your-own-press sites.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * """Keep""" i think if he can manage to get noticed by that website pianotech, and an article about himself on a major internet news site, then he's probably worthy of being on wikipedia. I've found other article's on the internet by that same reporter Ellie Nash. P.S The author's penname is Daric Rawr, probably the reason information is unfindable about the youth. He's got 11,000+ Result's, more than enough noteriaty. Wimsickle (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2010 — Wimsickle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply counting google hits doesn't establish notability, nor do press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, because this article was created, and of the news things across the internet, your trying to say that Daric created all of this? How is that remotely possible? Wimsickle (talk) 22:00 6 July, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.112.42 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, many references appear faked, like the made up press releases. Hairhorn (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... frankly I think this should be speedied as an obvious hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hoax? Could very well be. Pianotech (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an outright hoax. His book does exist for sale.  But I'd say there is a tremendous amount of exaggeration in the article -- Whpq (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After speedy-deleting twice, I decided that it would be more expedient to have the backing of an AfD discussion so this can be G4'd in the future.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably best. I've always understood, however, that an AFD could reach a consensus to speedy delete, and still stand as a legitimate AFD; "speedy delete" is a pretty common vote in discussions. But the AFD/G4 guidelines are not all that clear about this kind of case, at least as I remember them. Hairhorn (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct, and a speedy AfD is regarded as sufficient for a G4 deletion in my experience. Given the use of multiple accounts, fabrication of references, and full-time issuance of bogus press releases to any website that will accept a user contribution, I decided to have the discussion here to draw a clear line about using Wikipedia for promotion in such circumstances.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable self-published work "referenced" by press releases. Considering the re-creation, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2010 (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.