Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Brennan


 * 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Jake Brennan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication he's a notable podcaster, nor that he meets N:MUSIC. Draftification was contested, so we're here. Star  Mississippi  13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians.  Star   Mississippi  13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the winner of a Webby Award passes criteria 4 of WP:CREATIVE and criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, there are enough significant reviews of his book and podcast in the article already to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment.As the author of this page I don't feel qualified to explain why it's pretty clear (and agreed on by the above commenter) that this is a page worthy of inclusion. Multiple webby awards, national press, and was covered in Variety Magazine as recently as this week. Slazarus09
 * Delete and salt. Not a contested draftification, but simply WP:UPE editing. Onel 5969  TT me 18:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument for deletion. It's clearly a notable topic, even if we have a disclosed coi conflict of interest at work.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify - There are two issues here, a conduct issue and a content issue:
 * The notability of the podcast is clear, but this AFD is for a BLP of the originator of the podcast.
 * This article needs to be reviewed by a neutral reviewer to verify that all standards of the policy on biographies of living persons are satisfied. That is not clear with this article, especially in view of the conflict of interest.
 * The conflict of interest editing and the meatpuppetry are obvious.
 * AFD is a content forum. Conduct is not a reason to delete.
 * Draftification is an Ignore All Rules response to a blatant attempt to force non-neutrally written material into article space, and to have it indexed by Google's spiders, by what amounts to brute force.
 * I think that User:Onel5969 and User:Timtrent know that I dislike undisclosed paid editing as much as they do, but salting notable topics because of corrupt promotion is not the answer.
 * The draft should then be reviewed by a neutral reviewer, and returned to article space when found to be neutral.
 * The conduct issue should go to a conduct forum.
 * There is no right answer to this flagrant violation of conflict of interest and neutral point of view. I think that this is the least wrong answer.


 * Keep If the subjects are notable, then they're notable. That is what AfD is about determining. All arguments about anything else should be ignored. Issues with non-neutral writing in articles is a content issue and should be fixed in article, with stubification if necessary. Anyways, here's sources on the subject:
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. Silver  seren C 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep so that Double Elvis Productions, Jake Brennan and Disgraceland (podcast) can all be merged to this page. Gusfriend (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify Promotional article from a Paid Editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a need for that. The text is verifiable to the cited sources, and the subject is notable.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * However, the WP:PROMOTION policy applies separatly to WP:V. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except I'm seeing nothing promotional in the current text of the article. It lists straightforward facts about the subject sourced to reliable sources. What would be the point of draftifying it when it already meets requirements for mainspace publication? Silver  seren C 21:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tone is encyclopedic and the content neutral and verifiable, so WP:PROMO doesn't apply. The positive critical assessment of the subject is actually in the independent RS, so I am not really seeing a strong argument here that the content is problematic.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the promotional material quite ruthlessly, as a way of cutting through this dispute. I believe what remains is likely worth keeping. I respect the view that articles with evidence of promotion should be deleted outiright rather than improved, but until that's enshrined in policy, AfDs attempting to apply that argument are likely to be contentious. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And I went in and made some improvements as well. His music history alone has enough source coverage for him to meet GNG before you even get to his podcasting era. Silver  seren C 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Vanamonde93. —&#8205;Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:57, 30 October 2022 (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.