Talk:Justin Brooks

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 11 July 2019, see discussion.
no consensus, 31 October 2015, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Justin Brooks redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Articles for creation

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted on 21 September 2012 by reviewer Dcshank (talk · contribs).

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Dylanexpert (talk · contribs) has been paid by California Innocence Project on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

COI

To repeat what I said at Talk:Alex Simpson (attorney) and Talk:Alissa Bjerkhoel, since this article has the same issues:

The COI tag is related to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#QuisLex (perm). The extreme level of superfluous detail in this article about a relatively minor figure would be a bad sign all by itself. This is made worse by the passing mentions/press releases/etc. used as sources. This suggest this was written with promotional intent. Since the editor who wrote this has disclosed prior paid editing after-the-fact for one article, but has not clarified any others, this seems like a plausible concern here. These tags should not be removed until these issues have been addressed.

The simplest way to resolve this would be for a neutral editor to verify all sources as reliable, and trim so that content was proportional. Promotional language, such as peacock words, or flattering tangential details, should also be removed.

This specific article has a prior history of COI concerns, since the version before these edits was tagged with both Template:Autobiography and Template:Like resume. Neither of these problems was ever properly addressed, as far as I can see. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored a COI tag. While the paid editing has been disclosed, it was disclosed after the edits had been made. The article still needs to be trimmed, and readers should be made aware of the serious problems with the article's history. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]