User talk:Jimfbleak

Draft deletion: Kardashev (Band)

Hello @Jimfbleak: I noticed that you deleted the page that I created for Kardashev (Band). However, I am unclear why this was deleted. Can you help me by giving feedback on how to re-create this page so that it does not get deleted again? Also, will be created if you can move the deleted page to my sandbox User:Anupam112358/sandbox. Thanks! Anupam112358 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)User: Anupam112358

Replied on user talk page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Jimfbleak - appreciate it.

To clarify -

1. I like this band, you may call me a fan.

2. They are relatively new and there is not a lot of information about them other than news/media articles. I can delete that and just add the discography, but then the article would be a stub.

3. Can I, at the very least, get their discography from the band's own website? If not, it will have to be without sources. However, the band exists!

Can you help me make this better and/or point me to a source which would help me write this page within the guidelines of Wikipedia?

Anupam112358 (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anupam112358:, I think you rather miss the point; a band cannot have an article here unless it satisfies our music notability guidelines, which even you imply it does not. At best, it's too soon, and of course the fact that you're a fan is irrelevant.

A stand-alone discography isn't notable unless the performer or band is notable. Fine for Taylor Swift, not for Kardashev. FWIW, you don't need sources for discographies, filmographies or publications, unless they are challenged, which is improbable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Page deletion: Tammy Baart

Hi, you deleted the page I published for Tammy Baart saying it was largely promotional however it included published secondary sources. Can you please identify the sections you believe are promotional so I can improve and republish it? ~~~~. Erinplayswell (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Precoro

Hi Jimfbleak, you deleted Draft:Precoro under G11 earlier today. I have a disclosed {{paid}} relationship with Precoro as employer - the disclosure is on my user page, and has been there before the submission was made. I don't dispute the G11, it's my task to fix the problems, not argue about them, so I am asking for a chance to continue my work on the article - would you restore it to draftspace (or my sandbox) for that purpose? I'll make sure to follow the AfC reviewer's comment and not submit it for another review till then. Thank you. SamuelAlanGeertz (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

REplied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

A final word of caution about drafts and G11

Hi @Jimfbleak. As has been explained several times already, user drafts are not checked for notability, and WP:G11 is reserved for blatant advertisements (of the "call 1-800-SCAM to buy our new product!" variety). It is neither for drafts that were likely written with a conflict of interest, nor for drafts that don't meet notability guidelines. In fact, draftspace is where we expect these users to write, before submitting their articles through AfC!

Let's take the concrete example of Draft:Kardashev (Band) above. The relevant CSD criterion for notability, WP:A7, only applies to articles (not drafts!) that fail to provide a credible claim of significance (a much lower threshold than notability). Regarding copyright violations, WP:G12 only applies for cases where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving, while in this case you noted that copyrighted material only made up half the article.

For another recent example, Draft:Robert A. Guyer's deletion rationale references COI (again, something for which draftspace is encouraged), lack of sourcing and notability, none of which are criteria for speedy deletion or even tangentially related to WP:G11. Indefinite no-warning blocks, like that of LengZhixiong, should only be reserved for the most blatant cases (long-term abuse, high-speed vandalism on multiple pages), not for someone writing a non-notable COI draft.

You have already been warned about these issues by several experienced editors and admins, me included, in the past (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). While you have promised to heed that advice (e.g. here), it manifestly hasn't happened yet.

Please take this as your final warning, as the chronic issues at play here may well justify a recall petition in the future. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Thanks

• reserved for blatant advertisements (of the "call 1-800-SCAM to buy our new product!" Really? You need to tell that to the many admins (not just me) who delete company articles that are basically "this is what we sell" even if they don't actually use those words.
• As I am sure you know, I deleted Kardashev as G11 and G12, not A7, and although I sometimes comment on notabilty or COI, I didn't even do that in this case, so I can't imagine why you think I'd delete any draft as A7. Perhaps you misunderstood my reply to Anupam112358 above. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia make it unlikely that a non-notable band would meet them to the satisfaction of an AFC reviewer, and that's the honest advice I was giving. You may disagree with me about the notability of the band or the likelihood of a draft being accepted, but I don't think there was even an implicit threat that I would A7 a draft; why would I?
• Here's a timeline

• July 18: Obvious COI editor Gaok26 creates Draft:Paul A. Johnson (Geophysicist and Artist), self-sourced promo, I delete and post the standard COI welcome.
• July 19: Obvious COI editor Gaok26 reposts Draft:Paul A. Johnson (Geophysicist and Artist) and Draft:Robert A. Guyer, Guyer being Johnson's collaborator. I delete again and post a sterner warning about COI.
• July 20. Draft:Robert A. Guyer created by new editor LengZhixiong.

• You seem to take the view that LengZhixiong is a random editor who just happened to write, as their first contribution, a bio of Guyer the day after I issued a strict COI warning to Gaok26. I don't think I'm being unduly suspicious in viewing the accounts as being linked, with the newer one intended to evade the warnings given to Gaok26. I don't normally block editors writing biographies on the first occurence, but I don't share your apparent belief that there is no bad faith editing here.
• Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  You may disagree with me about the notability of the band or the likelihood of a draft being accepted, but I don't think there was even an implicit threat that I would A7 a draft; why would I? My point was that notability and COI are not relevant to G11 or G12, despite your deletion rationales (and later explanations) frequently referencing them as arguments.

  You seem to take the view that LengZhixiong is a random editor who just happened to write, as their first contribution, a bio of Guyer the day after I issued a strict COI warning to Gaok26. Not necessarily. Two users editing the same subjects could be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but it could also be two different people asked by the same source to write these articles. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've blocked LengZhixiong as a confirmed sock. Chaotic Enby, I don't think (of the "call 1-800-SCAM to buy our new product!" variety is supported by the policy as written or common practice. The policy is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles... However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.. I think this is more ripe for community clarification on how strictly G11 should be enforced rather than a recall. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, ScottishFinnishRadish. @Chaotic Enby:, I'd drafted a reply, but I'll rewrite and repost shortly because the confirmed sock makes it largely redundant. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• @Chaotic Enby: I've often added comments regarding notability or COI in addition to G11, G12 or whatever, although I didn't do so with Kardashev. If this is against policy, please point me to the relevant guidance. The only mention of notability was in response to a direct request for advice from Anupam112358. It's still my honest opinion that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia make it unlikely that a non-notable band would meet them to the satisfaction of an AFC reviewer. I don't think there was even an implicit threat that I would A7 a draft. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Chaotic Enby: I accept that I can be a bit gung-ho with deletions, so I'll only delete articles that are already tagged for G11, after checking, or are obvious advertising. I'll also refrain from adding comments about notability, COI, not in English or LLM until you have clarified our policy on such commentary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Paul A. Johnson

Hi Jimfbleak. Could you please undelete Paul A. Johnson? It was previously a redirect before being deleted for G11, and a number of pages still link to it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

45dogs, thanks, restored to redirect version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

UPE block

Hi, Jimfbleak. Sorry for visiting your talkpage twice in such a short period of time, but I was glancing through the logs when I saw your block of AslanBrooklyn. Would you mind explaining how this account has engaged in undisclosed paid editing? While a promotional block may be warranted, depending on the nature of their sandboxes, a glance at their contributions doesn't make the "undisclosed" part of that seem likely. Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: This edit saying "This is the User Page for Piper Theatre Productions" makes it pretty clear that the editor is writing for, or on behalf of, the theatre. Are you saying that that amounts to disclosure, even though it was removed by them three minutes later, or am I missing something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)