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 redirect‎ to Shots Podcast Network as a sensible ATD for this poorly sourced BLP. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Shahidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This clearly doesn’t meet WP:N for BLPs. First, the editor who created it later admitted to being paid for it. Second, I checked the sources and they aren’t strong enough to support a BLP. It’s clearly a promotional, paid BLP. Fwiw, he's using this WP bio to promote himself. Stablecoin (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will abstain from voting. I know paid editing is controversial and I sure regret it, but that isn't a reason to delete it. What do you mean, I "later admitted to being paid for it"? I did so at the time, eight years ago. I haven't edited or looked at the article in years, but a quick Google search looks to me he's still a notable person. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say we should delete this BLP just because of paid editing. That was just one factor—meaning the person wasn’t really notable, but the BLP got created because you was paid to do it. It’s been years since 2017 and I still don’t see them meeting WP:N, which is why I flagged it for deletion. If you think they do meet WP:N, why not show some solid coverage? Most of the sources focus on Shots Podcast Network rather than John himself. Maybe redirecting the BLP to Shots Podcast Network could make sense too. Stablecoin (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You numbered your arguments: First, the editor who created it later admitted to being paid for it. But now it's a "factor"? I noticed you created your account recently, did you do a WP:BEFORE check? Besides the sources already listed - and recent ones at that, he's a Trump supporter apparently, there's TMZ, VOX, Billboard... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You provided three sources—let me go through them one by one.

1. TMZ.com - Is this even a reliable source? I don’t think so.

2. Billboard.com - I don’t see SIGCOV here, just a single para about John and his brother.

3. VOX.com - This one feels like a puff piece—it literally starts with John Shahidi is the king of Twitter. How does someone with just 325K subs become the king of Twitter? Anyway, it’s not up to us to decide what’s factually correct or not. But I guess we do avoid puffery sources in our BLPs and this one definitely feels like a promo piece. Isn't it? Stablecoin (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For an account that was created two weeks ago, you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and acronyms. Have you edited before, under a different account name perhaps? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m not new here, but that doesn’t mean I’m socking or anything like that. Not everyone needs a decade to understand the P&Gs. Now, back to the actual topic? Stablecoin (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a moment here - under what account did you edit before? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is going off track. This is about a BLP deletion, not which account I used before. If you have concerns about that, you should bring them up at ANI or SPI instead. Stablecoin (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shots Podcast Network. I have not edited this article, and have no strong opinion on the nature of the article as a paid creation. It seems that Soetermans no longer does editing for pay and has been willing to disclose their conflict of interest here, so I have no interest in holding that against them. And while Stablecoin should ideally be disclosing the nature of their previous editing activities on Wikipedia and their reasons for using a new account as a matter of transparency, I agree with them that this is not the proper venue for discussing that; that is an issue for their user talk page.

What I do have interest in is determining if the article can be improved. I looked at each of the sources currently in the article, and I find that Stablecoin's nomination assessment is accurate: the vast majority of these sources merely trivially mention the subject, and only in the context of discussing his business ventures, particularly the Shots company. These sources do adequately show the notability of the company, but not Shahidi himself. In searching for other sources, I found that the only sources that address Shahidi personally in any amount of detail are the following:

• [1] - The Vox source. I agree with Stablecoin that this piece resembles WP:PUFFERY. It barely says anything about Shahidi himself, despite its title, and focuses mostly on his associations with the Shots company, Bieber, and Mayweather.
• [2] - Asia Media Journal. This doesn't look like a reliable source, but I am including it for completion's sake. Even if it is reliable, I would not consider it substantive. The comment that Like his early life, not much is known about John Shahidi’s personal life seems like a pretty significant flag that there's nothing worth talking about here that justifies a biography.

Every other source I could find is much the same as what is already in the article: trivial mentions in relation to something or someone else. As such, the deletion nomination appears sound to me, and I think the article should be redirected, and any potentially useful information that is not already in the Shots article should be merged as appropriate. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (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.