Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Sawyer Jr.


 * 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. No salt yet, but something to keep an eye on. The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Jared Sawyer Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article by paid editor in violation of the TOU. Deleted several times previously under various titles. Not an improvement over previous versions. I recommend a speedy close, and salting.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This just passed community consensus via an AfD a month ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre Sawyer Jr. While I !voted delete, it was determined that it was an improvement over previous versions. I will abstain from commenting further unless pinged. I do not plan to offer a !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it did not" pass community consensus", there was no consensus, so it was kept by default. no-consensus closes are appropriately renominated after a month, in the hope of obtaining a consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete paid TOU violation created by a CU confirmed sock that is obvious spam, so excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. The fact that this is paid and the subject is a young BLP makes deletion in this case even more of a good idea because of previous attempts we have had to blackmail the subjects of paid biographies (not this article, but others). Per my arguments in the last AfD: notability is also not established: most of the sourcing is trivial or local. Car crash articles do not establish notability, even if it is the Atlanta paper, because the Atlanta paper routinely covers car crashes. I don't think he's notable, but at most he is borderline, and given the paid concerns, deletion is the best outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources seem to be significant non-routine news coverage. A careful analysis reveals that this young person fails WP:NBIO. And yes, this is a violation of the terms of use. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Review of citations show them to be very skinny. Promotional. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (I iVoted Keep at the last AfD) My preference, clearly stated on talk page recently, would have been to wait several months before doing this again. Sawyer does have plausible claims to notability. And, I often favor of keeping reasonable good article with clear notability even when patently written by someone close to the subject. In this case, however, on Sept, 7, 3 days after the last AfD, someone restored a mass of unacceptable sources and material that had been cleaned off the page, and enormous amounts of editorial time have been wasted since by editors making dgood faith efforts to keep the page up to standards. It is simply not worth the toruble to keep this page on a young man who is - at best - very marginally notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. I voted Keep previously, but we've already been through AfD on this topic and there have been no events covered substantially in independent sources to have changed that outcome appreciably. The "Paid Editing" argument is a red herring — TOU enforcement is for San Francisco, not En-WP. Paid editing, disclosed or not, by one of multiple editors of the piece is not itself a valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete still WP:TOOSOON. WP:CLERGY doesn't apply to BLPs very well, but obviously isn't met, and neither is any other SNG.  References such as  don't suggest that GNG is met either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:39, 2 November 2017 (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.