Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerrod Sessler


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerrod Sessler

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is an autobiography created through this paid-editing request at elance dot com. At that website the client "jsessler" writes "I am looking for someone that has an account with Wikipedia and is familiar with the posting standards, requirements, etc. I want to create a profile page on wiki for myself where certain achievements can be explained. For example, I just wrote a book about beating cancer and I want to gain exposure for that story. "

This violates our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Also, looking over the article, it is filled with a lot of puffery but there is little substance which meets WP:N. Although the article bills him as a "professional NASCAR driver", there is hardly any direct coverage of him on Google News and most if not all mentions are trivial name-drops. I can't find any sources that have devoted a substantial analysis of him as the main subject of an article, nor can I see any reasons under WP:BIO to keep this.  Them From  Space  01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I gave this article a long look—I think I reviewed it as a new article—but could not put my finger on what was wrong with it. It reads just like what one would expect from a paid-for-promotional biography serving as an advertisement. Supertouch (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, actually could arguably be deleted as G10 spam, given the evidence. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising.  I also suggest that the account that created it (a throwaway with no other contributions) be blocked.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I originally tagged this article for deletion, and if you look at the first revision, it's unambiguously promotional material. Still is. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Offer of Compromise I disagree with the way he went about creating the article, as his intent was to gain publicity for his book. However, he is known for being an innovator in franchising and recognized by established authorities of franchising as an innovator in the industry. I propose deleting all mention of his book and leaving the rest of the page. He does seem to be a legitimate NASCAR driver, but that by itself does not make him significant. At the same time, Google hits do not reflect the value of someone's contribution in life or in business. The article is well sourced and documents his business acumen as it relates to franchising. Acting in Assume good faith, I'm not convinced that he should be punished indefinitely for making a mistake. It does not make him any less notable. As far as the person who started the page, if it's a new user, see if they make any additional contributions in the near future. If not, then block the account. I encourage a little restraint in the harshness of your punishment. Please don't let the power go to your head :-) USchick (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete We do not compromise on spam. I notice that a few minutes before the filing of this afd, at this edit this edit, which you  marked minor, you copied the contents of this article into the one for Yellow Van Handyman, above. The only rational purpose for that I can think of, was that you were intending to propose the merging of the two articles--which might be a good idea. But now we see you here defending keeping this one--and, out of the various parts of it, keeping the duplicative material! And the manner that material is written is promotional, not encyclopedic. It is these sorts of articles that destroy the objectivity of an encyclopedia. One of the things I am not inclusive about is spam.  Not having an article here is not a punishment. Having one is not a reward we give out . These are circumstances that I think would best be handled by deleting both articles.  The person who needs a reprimand is not the subject, who might not haver known. It's the author, both for spamming Wikipedia, and for telling the subject that he was  an expert and  taking money  for what was not a good piece of workmanship, and which will not accomplish its purpose. I would suggest a courtesy blank of this and the other afd, to spare the subject the embarrassment.   DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I don't have a dog in this fight. You can delete both of them if your really think it's justified. At the time I was making the edits in question, as far as I can tell, neither one of the articles was tagged for deletion, so I was simply expanding the other article with information I thought was valuable. I'm not sure what you mean by "promotional" in tone. How do you write a business article without sounding promotional? I really don't want to get into an edit war here, so I will sit this one out, if you don't mind. I'll be happy to answer specific questions if they are addressed in good faith. If you'd like to follow my editing trail, you will see that I often focus on linking related articles, sometimes to pages in other languages. That's what I was doing here as well. I did not realize there was a controversy brewing, that's why I marked it as a minor edit. USchick (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I over-reacted.   DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not Delete There is only one reference to his book in the entire article. No external links, no nothing. If that's too much, then excuse me. And believe me I've read it a million times and it does not look like advertisement. It is a biography and offers information. Sounds familliar? For you everything around here sound a little too commercial. Well, it isn't. And I suggest that the account of Andrew Lenahan, Starblind, be blocked because he is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipul verde (talk • contribs) — Tipul verde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per the nominator's rationale. I wouldn't have commented as the outcome is already probably decided, but I want to make this point clear. As far as him being a NASCAR driver - he's a driver in a medium level touring series. That does not give him automatic notability except possibly if he was a season champion in the series. I am not aware of any articles from another driver in that series.  Royal broil  05:40, 11 February 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.