Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Redding (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rob Redding
AfDs for this article:


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

Recreated by an SPA after the last AFD had a consensus to delete. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The previous article was deleted for being WP:PROMO. The current article doesn't seem to promotional to me, and even features some of the negative parts about his career, but I haven't seen the one before so I can not say. The article has some lead and grammar issues, but thats irrevelant to AFD and can be fixed. The sources look reliable to me. So it looks like the new article has changed enough that it should be reargued on the merits and not just "straight up recreation". I could be missing something here so please let me know if that is the case. Rlink2 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * KeepThis article is now much better than the deleted one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpolk (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: The deleted article is on the Wikipedia biography cleaninghouse: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/8aumR?kreymer=true (archived link because of Edit filter). The old article is *clearly* promotional, but the current one, less so. Rlink2 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I did some WP:BEFORE kind of work on this and added some stuff, organized it better. It's a poor quality article, it is promotional, the references are lots of passing mentions and tabloids. I think this article needs lots more work, especially editing down, but I think there is (or maybe probably is, I did give up a bit on the citations) enough to meet GNG. CT55555 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (Scored out, as I upgraded my vote below) CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weak keep Article has been re-written to eliminate some of the more promotional aspects. It appears that his many books are self-published - none have ISBNs, only ASINs (which are assigned by Amazon when there is no other identifier). Each book has only 5-star rave reviews, and no reviews from regular review sources like Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus. Cite #1 says that he has written "eleven best-selling books" but I see ratings like " #3,934,146 in Kindle Store", "#5,406 in Two-Hour LGBTQ+ Short Reads" - and this for books that are 1) Kindle-only and 2) less than $5.00. All of this is classic promotion. The site "Radio Facts" is itself promotional: (from their about page) "Radio Facts is also an aggressive online marketing and promotions company that caters to program directors and music directors at Urban, Urban AC, CHR and Rhythmic stations nationwide as well as consumers, niche markets, clubs, DJs and specific industry professions." The Adweek article is by its nature promotional and is written by someone who is simply listed as "Patrick" - no last name. That makes it hard to verify for authorial value. The Rush Limbaugh bit is trivial and at most could get one sentence. He did post a link to the Young interview, but it's a stretch to say more than that - in fact the cited source says: "Redding posted a link to the Young interview on Wednesday. The mainstream media picked it up Friday afternoon. "He helped to be sure," Eaton said. "I think the jury's still out on who broke it." Promotional, promotional, promotional. As well as stretching the facts considerably. One reference attributed to NPR was actually Adweek, and the other was a copy of an Atlanta Journal & Constitution blog post (which no longer exists). I can't go through every link but I'm not finding anything that is truly substantial and reliable. I'll keep a watch in case others have better luck. Lamona (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lamona How is the fact that his books are 1) Kindle-only and 2) less than $5.00 promotion? I'm just confused, arent there are many books like that?
 * written by someone who is simply listed as "Patrick" - no last name. Yes, knowing the real name can help with credibility, but tha lack of a name does not mean something is not reliable. Most websites and sources that are not news agencies do not have anyones name on them.
 * I should have been clearer - the "kindle only, $5" is more proof that these are not mainstream publications, which 1) are rarely digital only and 2) go for more $$ because the publisher is counting on recouping their costs. The standard commercial book price is $9.98 on Amazon. Also, if you look at the details, these "books" are more like long essays - the Amazon pages give them equivalent page lengths in the 50-70 page range. In any case, that's irrelevant because it's obvious that these are self-published as any publisher (even LuLu) would assign an ISBN. As for sources that do not have anyone's name on them, those sites are generally considered non-reliable. Reliable news sites have an editorial staff, named staff writers, and an editorial policy. This site (if you look at the ) has none of that. I actually think it is worse to have just a first name rather than none at all - it looks deceptive. For reliable news sites, if there is no by-line it is assumed to be a staff or editorial article. Lamona (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lamona Now I see what you are trying to convey, and I agree. While I don't think the price of the books really matter, the books are clearly self published (Amazon.com Services LLC) and WP:RS has some words regarding self-published sources (they are not independent sources).
 * Regardless, the Adweek article does not meet the WP:SIGCOV requirements either. I don't know if the short snippet is the whole article, but if it is then I don't think its enough to establish WP:GNG Rlink2 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * At the very least, would argue that the Marshall University source might go for something, since its from an educational instutition, of which there would be less debate about its reliability. Rlink2 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a repository, not a publisher, and the item there is a thesis. Academies often have a digital repository where people can literally deposit their writings so they don't get lost over time. Most likely all theses from Marshall are stored in this repo. Theses are not "published" in the sense we mean of that term. They are considered manuscripts and are the work of a student. Also note that this is a Masters thesis. Lamona (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the articles in a repository? There does not seem to be a link to them, but there are library reference numbers which means they are, in fact, published with an academic institution.  I also think the fact that you all want to delete this should consider that you all are criticizing his work so significantly and he is clearly a hardworking, published achiever.  Additionally, he is a person of color and I think unless everyone else here is also a person of color, you could be seeing this through a lense that does not properly consider what he has to overcome in order to be such an achiever. He no doubt, has faced some race-based obstacles, this discussion not being the least of them.ChristaJwl (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ChristaJwl
 * , in fact, published with an academic institution Read Lamonas explanation above, it makes sense to me at least.
 * you could be seeing this through a lense that does not properly consider what he has to overcome in order to be such an achiever. There are many people of color who are facing some obstacles, but how does a WIkipedia article aid in those obstacles? In many cases, it might be undeseriable for a subject to have a wikipedia article, because wikipedia articles are not supposed to be fluff pieces, and may contain negative info about the siubject. Rlink2 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rlink2 I disagree. It is rarely desirable for a subject's contributions to be overlooked, regardless of what they may be.  And, in this case, the subject is controversial on purpose.  There is an avenue for an article to be removed at the subjects request which has not occured here.  So, to the extent, there is a request to have it removed outside of him, we need to consider the truth of what makes his article "less than desirable" to the editors.  We cannot presume to think on behalf of him or otherwise be working to preserve his reputation. Quite to the contrary, here we are saying that his contributions are somehow insufficient and disagreeing with the editor who initially composed the article who believed his contributions to be significant enough that he should have a page.  I do not think the initial editor, nor he would consider this article a fluff piece.  I also updated it a bit because initially it had a "journalism" heading which did not quite describe what was below.  I changed it to a "controversies" heading because I think it better describes the majority of his contributions.  He is a controversial African American who speaks out on subjects which some would prefer not to listen to and, perhaps for that reason, his career does not appear to be remarkable in this space.  However, I think the majority of other African American in academia and otherwise would vehemently disagree and would strongly prefer to be able to research him as a subject for reference in future academic works.ChristaJwl (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ChristaJwl
 * There is an avenue for an article to be removed at the subjects request which has not occured here. Even then, subjects can only request to have an article deleted under specific cirumstances (borderline notability). You are saying the article is notable to the point where even he can't get it removed, which is contradictory I think.
 * And, in this case, the subject is controversial on purpose What is the controversy surrounding him? I don't see anything of that sort in the current article.
 * disagreeing with the editor who initially composed the article who believed his contributions to be significant enough that he should have a page. There's alot of stuff I believe in too but we still have to follow Wikipedia policies.
 * I do not think the initial editor, nor he would consider this article a fluff piece. The old version (see archived link above) was clearly a puff piece. In the old article, there is literally a heading inviting people to buy his books on Amazon. I haven't seen something like that anywhere else on Wikipedia. If that isn't an example of WP:PROMO, I don't know what is.
 * The creator of the new draft has done a much better job of making the article more encylopedic, and the sources seem to check out, hence why I voted keep. It's still borderline though, especially after @Lamona's comments regarding the sources (which was the other reason the article was deleted) and some additional research I did on my own
 * . I changed it to a "controversies" heading because I think it better describes the majority of his contributions. Some of the events have nothing to do with his controversy. A section titled "controversy" should detail controversy with Rob Redding, not controversy with the stories Rob Redding has covered.
 * However, I think the majority of other African American in academia and otherwise would vehemently disagree and would strongly prefer to be able to research him as a subject for reference in future academic works. A Wikipedia article is not needed for that. Most of the things I do "research" on don't have Wikipedia articles or very short ones. Rlink2 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * CommentI just did a major edit of the page, removing all non notable books, rewriting career and education section, massively cutting down the "controversies" section removing all uncited content and most quotes, then putting it into the career section. It still needs work, but think/hope I've addressed the PROMO nature and the prior abundance of superfluous and uncited content. CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. You have improved the article. Gregpolk (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * CT55555 Great job, thank you. I will happily change my delete to keep although with one change to the article, which is that he has NOT written 11 best sellers - we have evidence of one of his books being a best seller. I also think it would make sense to say, rather than he has written books, that he publishes his longform writings on Amazon. I think that better describes his works, which are not book-length, and which are often listed in the "90-minute" read categories on Amazon, and which are self-published. If no one objects here in the next few days, I'll make that change, and will leave in the one that is confirmed as a best-seller. Lamona (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those seem like reasonable changes, I suggest you do them quickly, as normally these discussions close after 7 days and therefore it will be closed before the change and before you change your vote. CT55555 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lamona @CT55555I don't agree here on the books. Amazon's list is hourly and these books where published months and years ago. It is literally the number one seller of books and is cited often by many. I think its fair to point out that some are short books ( which are legitimate categories on Amazon) but I will not go along with diminishing this man's body of work. Here are more cites for the No. 1 status of two other books Target and Disrupter.
 * Please Review these cites:
 * https://www.blackstarnews.com/education/education/rob-reddings-%E2%80%98target-unwrapping-racism-debuts-at-no-1.html
 * http://www.urbanradionation.com/2012/08/rob-reddings-book-disrupter-spends-week.html Gregpolk (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it diminishes his work to tell the truth. We run into this a lot with author articles that announce that the person has written "best sellers". In other discussions it has been required that such a statement be verifiable, which seems reasonable. With Amazon it is difficult because of the volatility of its ranking, and I do wish that they kept a "highest rank reached" count, but I don't see one. It is also important to say WHERE it was a best-seller - is this a NY Times best seller list? On Amazon, is it overall, or for a specific category? What's wrong with saying "a best seller in the Amazon category X"? That's good information about the person and his work. Actually, I think that's better than just saying "best seller" because it says more about the work and it is more authoritative. I also don't think that it diminishes the works to say that they are "longform" or "novellas", which is defined as: "Merriam-Webster defines a novella as "a work of fiction intermediate in length and complexity between a short story and a novel".Novella. Amazon, and especially Kindle, has created a viable market for short books that would not have been published in hard copy because they weren't seen as economically viable. This is a GOOD THING. I also think it is truthful to say that he self-publishes via Amazon, because he does. Again, that is a GOOD THING because it creates an outlet that doesn't exist in traditional publishing. That's how "50 shades of gray" got started. If this truth diminishes the person then ... I don't know. Are we working in an alternate reality here? Lamona (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I edited the Black Star News website and created a page about its founder last month as a result of checking out the credibility of that source when I was commenting on this AfD. So I can say with confidence that it is a credible publication run by a journalism expert. I therefore agree with you @Gregpolk that the comment about 11 books is credible. I will edit that back in. I hope this might also convince you @Lamona CT55555 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555Thanks for your support on this. Gregpolk (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another cite for the art: http://www.nyartbeat.com/event/2018/9329 Gregpolk (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 And one more for the art: https://news.radio-online.com/articles/n40788/Talker-Rob-Redding-Sells-Painting-for-$10K Gregpolk (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (I voted weak keep above, and I commented above, don't count me twice) but having just added coverage about his art, I think he passes WP:CREATIVE in addition to his notability for journalism. His work was featured in a notable magazine, therefore satisfying criteria 3 of CREATIVE. CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Asking @Heathart @Fishantena @Blackdiamond2005 @Halimahart @Q_heretic @Remolachacruda to please help improve art and any other sections here. Thanks!


 * 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.