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. Sandstein 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Donald Watkins

Donald Watkins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, original page deleted as G11 for undisclosed paid editing. This page got recreated today - "I am a novice Wiki editor" etc in the edit summary, it just feels suspicious to me. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→ Message me. ←} 17:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• The alleged reason for deleting this Wikipedia page is incorrect and false. The editor is NOT a paid editor. The editor is an independent biographer and not an "undeclared paid editor." The editor has no professional or personal relationship to any of the businesses or cases referenced in the biography. The editor is learning Wikipedia editing policies. It is his understanding that Wikipedia pages are never considered complete. Please keep that in mind. This editing began only 2 months ago. The editor makes mistakes, but please make suggestions, not complete deletion of the page. The cited references that the editor has added are all verifiable and follow Wikipedia protocol. Thank you. DerrickH71 ( talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

*Please identify what "feels suspicious" about this Wiki page. Also, please post the link to the Wikipedia policy that identifies what constitutes "feels suspicious" characteristics of an article. What "feels suspicious" to me DerrickH71 ( talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) is the repeated attempts to remove Mr. Watkins's Wikipedia page. His biographical information is available in all of the verifiable references that are included in his page. The false claim made by Jimfbleak when he deleted the page on January 13, 2018 was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: promo for the boss by undeclared paid editor." I am not nor have I ever been paid to edit any Wikipedia page. I only began editing two months ago. I guess I should feel honored that the veteran editors are questioning my "novice Wiki editor" status. Why is that so contentious? Again, all of this dispute about Mr. Watkins's Wikipedia page is very suspicious to me. Could this attack on Mr. Watkins be directed toward his history of dealing with civil rights issues. Could this be an attack on his ethnicity? Or an attack on his success because of his ethnicity? I don't think Wikipedia policy allows that. If I have placed these remarks in an incorrect space, please don't delete them. Just teach me about the proper protocol or direct me to the Wikipedia page that addresses these types of comments. reply

Thank you DerrickH71 ( talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete The whole tone of this is hagiographic distinguished legal career... record number... landmark cases... nationally recognized cases. My additional claim that he has a COI is that the other two articles by this editor that I deleted at the same time were highly promotional adverts for two companies run by Watkins where the text was copied from the companies' websites with the "justification" for the latter being a letter of permission from... Donald Watkins! If DerrickH71 is not a paid editor working on behalf of Watkins, it still seems likely that he has a conflict of interest, which is permitted, but he should be transparent if he is a friend, relative or associate of Watkins. In fact, he claims to be a "biographer", but doesn't say whether he intends to publish commercially, or the extent of his contact with Watkins. I note that his defence of his article above includes a personal attack on me with a claim that I am a racist, based solely on the fact that I delete an article about a black man. FWIW, I'm not an American, and I've never mentioned my own ethnicity to this user or anyone else on Wikipedia. It would be nice if DerrickH71 apologised, but I'm not holding my breath. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• I don't have admin access, so I cannot pull up the details of old versions of this article... but some of this text was from an article that was not placed here by an editor who has just a couple months experience, as it was quoted in this online thread back in 2014 ("In addition to his legal career, Watkins received national media coverage for his attempts to purchase The Minnesota Twins[1] in 2002 and The Anaheim Angels[2] in 2003." was in this article in that form until I corrected the bracketed numbers to reference statements.) However, the reference statements being used include "Retrieved 2007-05-08", which set off some loud warning signals. So at the very least, this article has problems with its edit history not reflecting proper attribution of contributions. Someone better at wielding these things may want to look at when and how that old article was deleted. Beyond that, yes, the article in its current form has severe problems with promotionalism, with POV, with sources that don't reflect the claims made. That is a separate question from whether the subject meets our notability requirements. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, the previous edit history should be undeleted if the article survives AfD. There may even be an earlier version that would not be subject to WP:G11. WP:REVDEL may have been a better option, or perhaps just WP:REVERT. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 07:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

My wording does not state that you "are a racist." My wording asked a question concerning why the editing of Mr. Watkin's page is receiving such scrutiny. Never were you personally accused. My point was that his history is well-documented. I am in the process of trying to make it all follow the Wikipedia protocol. In fact, I am using Oprah Winfrey's Wikipedia Page one of my guidelines. Her page is filled with facts of her success as I am trying to do with Mr. Watkin's page. It is a documented legal fact that information related to his life, career, and success was deleted from his Wikipedia page within the last year as he sought legal justice in a number of matters in my state. I read about the issue with his page and decided that I would try to restore the page. I am not being paid. I am not a friend/colleague/business partner of Mr. Watkins. I am a private citizen who has taken on this task. If my words offended you personally, Jimfbleak, I certainly do apologize.  DerrickH71 ( talk) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The subject of the article is notable, but the article fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are numerous news reports available to expand and properly reference the article, including very significant events not mentioned in the article. If the article survives this process, DerrickH71 should be aware there is likely to be a massive rewrite, and Derrick will not be in control of the article, per WP:OWN. If Derrick is comfortable with this, the outcome could become a "keep," but the article will likely be very different to the current version. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• As requested by Jack N. Stock I've restored the article with its full history, although it doesn't ever seem to have been much more than a fanpage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• • You've restored the history of the late 2017 version of this page. However, there are indications that there was an earlier version of this page, and that material from that earlier version has been integrated into this version. Is there any track record of that? I'm trying to understand the history of this page better. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to be all there now. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I think that was my bad - I clicked the wrong thing and got only a partial history. My apologies. (It's a tough day here.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Subject has been involved in some high-profile cases, but no coverage which suggests personal notability. As a side note, it is quite suspicious that the article's main contributor, User:DerrickH71, is a WP:SPA who started editing a few days after User:Donaldvwatkins1 made his final edit. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 09:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment The reason many people would have heard of Watkins is that he was sued for allegedly defrauding NFL and NBA athletes. [1] [2] Last year, he settled a separate suit brought by former NFL linebacker Bryan Thomas. [3] This issue is missing from the article. Do you think it might make a difference here? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- A nn individual; the controversies listed above are insufficient. Given the history of the article, maitaining its neutrality would not be worth it, given that the subject is non notable. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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.