Admin deleted the article under the premise of G11. When I contacted him to discuss this, he told me he had deleted it as a paid edit (and then archived that discussion immediately). Not only was I not paid to create the article, but I don't think G11 is considered grounds for deleting paid edits anyway. But that needs to be beside the point because I was NOT PAID ONE THIN DIME TO CREATE IT. I have openly declared my paid edits, and this was not one of them. The article was written neutrally and included multiple reliable independent citations that discussed the subject in depth. I am getting tired of being falsely accused of this. KDS4444(talk)00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the current admin noticeboard discussion leaning towards a siteban for KDS4444 based on egregious abuse and undisclosed paid editing. Spammer spamming spam. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a refiling of a previous request for deletion review for which I had not provided the complete/ correct name of the deleted page. I had given my reason in that filing, and now cannot locate it. Article was deleted under G11 but deleting admin, whom I contacted and who then immediately archived our conversation, claimed that he had deleted it because he believed (falsely) that I had been paid to write it (which was simply not true, and G11 doesn't usually apply to such cases anyway, does it?). I left a notice of this deletion review on that admin's talk page, and it too was removed. I don't understand what is going on here, but it is reaching a level of absurdity. KDS4444(talk) 00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Overturn CSD, list at AfD. Looking at the deleted text, and following up some of the cited references, this doesn't seem so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 should apply. I doubt it would survive WP:AfD, but that's the right place to decide. As for the paid editing, that's not a WP:CSD. And, as for the OTRS abuse and possible site ban, at this point, that's just a discussion. I agree that looking at the discussion, it's pretty clear where it's going, but that's not license to jump the gun until a formal decision is made. And even then, banning a user does not imply deleting content created by that user without due process. -- RoySmith(talk)13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Endorse the site ban has gone through, the PROD rationale was correct, and there is no chance of this surviving an AfD because the pitchforks would show up within a minute of it being listed. The community's time has been wasted enough by this editor already and we've site banned him for it. Let's not waste any more time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I don't think the text of this article met G11, but I doubt it has much chance at AfD and I don't think we should give that courtesy to a banned paid editor. Hut 8.520:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
