Michael Pollack – DGG's intervention is, at least to me, sufficient to justify looking further than the GNG aspects and asking whether UNDUE and BLP have been properly considered in the draft. That these issues have gained traction in the discussion once raised is indicative that I should give them more weight than earlier votes that did not consider this and I am also mindful that GNG is a guideline and BLP is a policy and therefore has more weight. On that basis I do not find a consensus that this article is ready for mainspace and urge the nominator to look hard at the draft and work on the issues raised by DGG before bringing this back for further discussion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Pollack (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) I have made a new version at User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack (also at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Pollack) but because an earlier version had been recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack), some editors cautioned against a bold move to the mainspace. Other discussion venues: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4_for_an_article_about_an_AFD.27ed_topic_which_has_new_sources Wikipedia:Notability_noticeboard#Notability_of_Michael_Pollack User_talk:Karanacs#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD) User_talk:SwisterTwister#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD) User_talk:WhisperToMe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation (related to articles for creation) User_talk:Sionk#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FMichael_Pollack (related to articles for creation) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The editor who originally started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack stated concerns that the new sources being used fall under Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine_coverage. We need to review what that means. "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." Which sources are characterized like this? The death of Pollack's son, for instance, is not treated as a "routine" announcement but as a locally high profile accident that lead to controversy (Joe Arpaio soapboxed about illegal immigrants after information about the perpetrator was found) - There are numerous sources that are not characterized like this WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I am not seeing anything in the history of the rewritten pages before the article was deleted at AfD. The question in my mind is whether the current draft is "substantially identical" to the deleted version of the article. Can someone help over this? WhisperToMe says it is not. I think others are saying it is / may be / can only be substantially identical. I think it is the "identical" issue that DRV should address prior to any move to main space or relisting, not whether the new draft shows notability. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The old article was at Michael Pollack - I'm not sure what steps need to be taken for the content to be made public WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment The death of Pollack's son, for instance, is not treated as a "routine"... the problem with that is that it's not someone writing about Pollock, because Pollock is notable, it's someone writing about the death because that's "interesting", anything about Pollock is a result of that interest not any direct notablity of Pollock. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] In order for it to be substantial coverage, the article doesn't have to be completely about the subject, but instead it just has to give "non-trivial" coverage. I was able to use articles about Pollack's son's death to source details about Pollack himself. In addition, the principle is that info about non-notable family is covered in the article about the notable person, so info about Pollack's son is covered in the article of his father. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's rather circular, you want to include it to make him notable, and then as he's notable it's ok to include it since his son isn't. Yes it doesn't have to be 100 about Pollock, but it becomes routine coverage about him, your argument about it not being routine is because of the events surrouding his son, not him. It's routine to mention the family in such articles. You already declared it in your summary, the soapboxing about immigrants etc. drove interest, not Pollock. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree too there are some 'red herrings' which may raise suspicions amongst some. But the death of Pollack's son is not the basis for the article, it is incidental. The fundamentals for satisfying WP:GNG are elsewhere in the new article. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Firstly, yes, the son's death is not the primary focus of the article. Also, again, Pollack's son's death cannot be considered routine. This is routine: "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." and "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" - When a son of a prominent business leader dies suddenly in what could be a negligent death, and Pollack asks for a $10K reward for info, and then the suspect is found to possibly be an illegal, and Joe Arpaio uses it to say "let's go after illegals" that is not routine coverage WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep article (and add any coverage that wasn't discovered at the time). I declined the 'new' article at AfC and suggested WhisperToMe opened this DRV. In all honesty, there is ample news coverage over a considerable period and in normal circumstances I would have had little problem in moving the article to main article space. However, because WhisperToMe had been open in declaring the recent AfD, I found it difficult to understand why the many substantial news sources had not been available at the AfD (which had concluded only 10 days before the article was recreated). Pollack's website has comprehensive lists of press coverage with transcripts. At AfD the participants dismissed the extant press coverage as local and insignificant, which is bizarre in my view, considering the size/population of Houston/Arizona! Sionk (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Permit re-creation. The old article was blatant puffery; WhisperToMe's rewrite is a vast improvement. I'm hesitant to overturn the original discussion because of that, though I do think WhisperToMe's late discovery of proper sourcing went unnoticed. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep, the proposed article provides significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. It appears these sources simply weren't uncovered at the AFD (I never got to see the version of the article that was AFD'd), or weren't considered thoroughly, which is fine--it happens, that's why we have the DELREV process. At WP:BIO, we don't have specialty criteria for businesspeople, but I see at WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" meet notability requirements, and I see at WP:CORP(hey, "Corporations are people" right? :-P ) it says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." So there's some precedent for considering "local" people as notable, and "regional" media coverage counts. The above line of argument that the sources found should be discounted as 'routine coverage' does not seem to have any merit or grounding in Wikipedia guidelines. `Zad68` 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment This is I suppose a very hard-working individual who has had success in real estate in Arizona (obviously not so much in Texas). I will note that coverage by the Phoenix Business Journal is basically routine; it's just that you didn't use to read that back in 2003-2008 during the real estate boom. Truly, there must be at least 40-50 people like Pollack in Phoenix. Beyond that, the only substantive claims to notability I can see are in the Career in Arizona and western states section. Removing the fluff (sorry), I suppose that's enough to pass WP:GNG. Because the rest: "Real Estate Entrepreneur of the Year", by a non-notable organization. "Young Builder of the Year" by non-notable organization Unsourced claim that Gov. Jane Hull recognized him somehow. Sorry, couldn't find that anywhere. Promoted an apartment complex in Houston, which eventually folded. Opened a jewelry store. Arrives by limousine to events wearing a suit. Had a fan club in highschool. Has an awesome mane of hair. The death of his son is tragic but irrelevant; Joe Arpaio will pontificate about illegal immigration if a fly lands on his hat. I should know, since I live in Phoenix. The music section looks impressive, except that it's actually tied to the notability of the crappy move theater in Tempe (you have no idea how crappy that place, but that's also irrelevant). I brought the original version of the article to AFD because it was poorly sourced and the creator was, according to his user page, an "internet marketer" of some sort, whose sole contribution to the encyclopedia was this article, if I remember correctly. Aside from that, I have no opinion either way as to whether this should stay deleted or not. I have a feeling this is all just impressive WP:ROUTINE with local scope, but I'll let other editors decide that. I will note that the biography is probably too extensive and filled with irrelevant puffery (sorry, I understand you wanted to make this look nice), so I'd only recommend pairing it down a bit if it's going to get moved to article space again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] 1. "Truly, there must be at least 40-50 people like Pollack in Phoenix." - If so, then try to write an article about them. That type of argument was used in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California (there are other Hmong communities like this one, so why do we have an article on this one?) to try to discount the subject's notability. The argument was rejected by the editor base, and the article was kept. 2. "Unsourced claim that Gov. Jane Hull recognized him somehow. Sorry, couldn't find that anywhere." - That is not unsourced. It is sourced to reference#19 - Anonymous. "2001 Valley Influential: Michael Pollack." The Business Journal. American City Business Journals, October 12, 2001. Volume 22, Issue 2. p. 38. ISSN 08951632. Available at ProQuest. - The entire block of text "By 2001 he had [...] retail space in Arizona, California, and Nevada." is sourced to reference #19. - There is a re-post of Ref#19 at Pollack's website at http://www.pollackinvestments.com/press10_2001_businessjournal.html - which says "He also has been recognized by Arizona Gov. Jane Hull." 3. "The death of his son is tragic but irrelevant; Joe Arpaio will pontificate about illegal immigration if a fly lands on his hat. " - Pay close attention to the references; the references make it clear that the man's death was important because he was Pollack's son - This is a classic case of "relative of a notable person." Pollack was active in campaigning for info, offering a cash reward. The father was clearly involved in the aftermath, so it is relevant to Michael Pollack the person. And you may feel that Arpaio's campaigns are silly/muckracking/whatever - that doesn't change the fact that Arpaio made an issue of it, full stop, making it non-routine. 4. Re: "Real Estate Entrepreneur of the Year" and "Young Builder of the Year" they were stated in a newspaper source, not by primary source articles from the organizations. Even though the awards themselves don't have Wikipedia articles, there has to be some way of assessing notability in major metropolitan areas from awards issued by local or national trade organizations. 5. " I will note that coverage by the Phoenix Business Journal is basically routine" - Which articles are "routine" and why? The articles on the new strip center and/or new purchases and the NFL Haiti relief could be deemed routine (feedback from other editors could be welcome?) - The NFL Haiti relief article and the Goodwill article are used as supporting info, to show what philanthropic works that Pollack did (he is known for philanthropy, and has supported Goodwill for a long time). The articles on new developments are used to support general details that Pollack is known for ([Pollack is] "known for his full head of hair, flashy cars and eccentric collection of advertising memorabilia"). The articles on Pollack's son's death are not routine for the reasons I state above. "New rules would rein in sales of copper AC coils." is not routine - when somebody is making a campaign to change state laws, it's not a routine matter. "Most Admired CEOs: Michael Pollack" - I don't think that's considered routine. It's a ranking of prominent business leaders. 6. The way "Because the rest:" makes it sound insignificant. That's not how it really should be phrased. That's not how it should be summarized. This is how it should be written: Promoted an apartment complex in Houston which was extensively promoted over television advertisements which had enticing advertisements, leading to local notability, which eventually folded. (Don't all businesses eventually fold?) As a consequence of the advertisements and the suave image he cultivated in Houston, Pollack became a local celebrity. As evidence of that: Had a fan club that was established in a highschool and the said high school conducted an interview of Pollack (this is not a main detail, but a supporting detail of the point that he had local notability) Appeared at nightclubs emceed beauty pageants hosted a talk show loaned a car to the Fawcett-O'Neal entourage While doing business in Arizona, Pollack continued to have a suave image Has an awesome mane of hair. (now you know "Has an awesome mane of hair." is in fact an important detail, because it is a part of the above) Arrives by limousine to events. And while doing business he is wearing a particular type of suit. Opened a jewelry store. was something he did in between Houston and Arizona. It's there just to state what he did in between these phases. Many of the points you made were supporting details that show how he cultivated his persona/did business/etc WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment FreeRangeFrog seems to be arguing that the article be deleted because passing, routine coverage exists. They seem to be ignoring the fact that substantial coverage over a considerable period exists too. For example the two Houston Chronicle articles from 1987 and 2008 commence by saying Pollack's "name became a household word following an extensive ad campaign ...two years ago" and "there has never been a phenomenon quite like Michael Pollack". I've never been a supporter of businessmen having vanity pages on Wikipedia, but in this case Pollack seems to be a very newsworthy individual over 25+ years. The one criticism I'd make of WhisperToMe is their inclusion of every minor mention too, which in some instances may be WP:UNDUE and distracts from the key sources. That would demand clean-up, not deletion. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Like I said, I am not offering a !vote here either way. I voiced my opinion on the revised draft, and that's it. Someone below brought up a concern I honestly couldn't bring myself to voice (COI), but that would be irrelevant if WP:GNG is being met in the first place. Again, I will let others decide where this goes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Question @WhisperToMe: do you seriously think that your article is appropriate coverage for someone of marginal notability? I think we could justify a short article on him as a person of sufficient regional notability, but proposing an article of this sort does not support the case for restoration, but rather the reverse: given a choice between an article of that degree of detail, and no article at all, the encyclopedia would be better off having none. I know that's not a formal criterion, but if we're going to have to deal with this sort of content, my judgment would be keep deleted, by IAR if necessary, until someone writes an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Agree that the proposed article itself needs work and contains far too much extraneous detail, but on Wikipedia, notability (Should there be an article on something?) is an entirely separate question of the current quality of the article itself. `Zad68` 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Answer: Considering that an article with too much detail on a notable subject is better than having no article, but not as good as a polished article, my answer to #1 is yes. About "I think we could justify a short article on him as a person of sufficient regional notability[...]" as stated by other users this is a question of notability. The article demonstrates that the subject is notable, therefore the article should be moved to the mainspace. I am happy to have this article edited and polished after it's moved (or if someone wants to post suggestions on specific passages to improve...). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] If the original article was indeed created by an "internet marketer" as stated above, it seems likely that a more reasonable article would be constantly ballooning into something like this anyway. It doesn't seem worth the effort to maintain in the face of demonstrated self-promotion. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Also about "[...]it seems likely that a more reasonable article would be constantly ballooning into something like this anyway. It doesn't seem worth the effort to maintain in the face of demonstrated self-promotion." the article can always be reverted and protected to prevent self-promotion. Someone can post an alert on the NPOV noticeboard to say "somebody promoting themselves is editing the article" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Allow re-creation. Allow any user to list at AfD.. Recommend a toning down of the promotional feel. User:WhisperToMe appears to have sufficient editing experience. Can he please assure us that there is no WP:COI issue here? The subject appears notable. The draft beats CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] 1. Where do you feel there is a promotional feel to the article? 2. There is no COI issue here. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The promotional feel? The writing style is too close to the subject. It is not "objective, from a distance". It feels like it is written by his personal assistant modified to meet the letter of Wikipedia policy. It have no sense of how the subject connects to other notable subjects. What other articles would link to this biography? If none, that is a strong indicator that it is not suitable I have not gone thought the references to check that there are at least two strictly "secondary source", reputable and independent sources of direct coverage of the subject, as that is a question for discussion at AfD. Read every sentence by DGG slowly and carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The idea that it sounds too promotional sounds strange to me. You may want to compare the article I wrote to the one that actually was deleted in the AFD. Or maybe to this. The article that was deleted was truly a promotional article. I've written articles for Wikipedia for years and so I believe I have a handle on how to write an article on an encyclopedic tone, and I understood that I had to say "this is how he is notable" hence why there are statistics on, say, how many properties his companies own or how much square footage they have, but that doesn't translate into being promotional. Also not everything in the "Houston" section of the new article I wrote is particularly flattering. If you think there are ways to phrase particular passages in a less promotional way, I'll be happy to hear it. I really need to be pointed to particular passages. "It have no sense of how the subject connects to other notable subjects." -One is Gulfton, Houston, where that Colonial House Apartments complex was located. Pollack can be linked from the Arizona cities where he lives/works. Plus also on any article about Metal theft since Pollack is politically active in that arena. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] In any case, I support the recreation. I'm warning here of weak points that might be significant in a possible future AfD. Maybe this guy really is an All-American Good Guy Hero, but some impartial criticism seems missing. Connecting this bio to other current articles would be a good thing to do. Of course, you first have to put it into mainspace before introducing incoming links from other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. In that case I wrote User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack to show how and why each section exists so people can then talk about how to slim down the article there. I want more criticism too honestly but other than the Houston Chronicle source that talks about the shaminess behind the 1980s Houston marketing I am not seeing criticism in any of the sources that I found on him. There are no sources that talk about criticism of Pollack in Arizona. In order for me to find criticism, sources with criticism have to exist first WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Just commenting at the AFD closer that I am aware of this debate and believe I followed proper process, but am happy to accept if the community feels circumstances have changed. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment To clarify what may seem as a position inconsistent with many of my comments elsewhere: There are only certain limited instances where I support deletion & reconstruction instead of fixing. The obvious ones are copyvio, when there's no non-copyvio version to revert to, or an attack page with no decent version in history. There's also incoherency of various sorts, where there's nothing worth saving. Nobody would save these, & it is no accident that they are speedy criteria. I add to that another speedy criterion, blatant promotionalism. Previously, I would have only suggested removing exceptionally blatant & unremovable promotionalism. My standard now is the level at which I would delete via G11; and i would even support a little less than that, with consensus--not as speedy. I consider the article to have been at that level. It wasn't just somewhat excessive, it was wildly disproportionate. The defender of the article seems not to realize that, and this is another reason I would delete. The proper length for a barely notable subject is one or two paragraphs, unless sometimes it takes a little longer to explain, which is not the case here. As for the question of where there is promotional text that has just been asked, promotionalism is not just a question of a list of taboo words, but an overall approach that has no apparent purpose except to magnify the importance of the subject. An encyclopedia is supposed to be discriminating, not just in what it covers, but the way it covers them. As this is a matter of judgment, the only way to decide is informed consensus. so here are the factors that inform my view of it: (1) the paragraph on high school career. It is a common technique of promotional articles to try to show how the subject's career developed out of the miscellaneous jobs or hobbies they had in high school. As such material always rests on the subjects own memories, & are normally sourced to interviews with him, I consider this unreliable -- and inappropriate for anyone except the famous, especially where the work of true biographers may have actually found some objective evidence. (2) Related to this are details about his first business endeavors. For a business persons, they're worth mentioning, but not in as much detail, any more than would be a scientist's student papers. The 2nd sentence of the second paragraph of "Career in Houston" is an example. (3)Using multiple quotes from the subject giving his views of why he did something is almost always a promotional technique, designed to provide human interest. Human interest is a technique for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. The 3rd paragraph of that section is a good example, as is the 3rd paragraph of the Arizona career. (3) The names of someone's children can be appropriate information, if they are widely known, or they appear in sources that the subject authorized. The details of their careers are not. (4) Elaborate treatment of someone's hobbies is rarely appropriate only for the famous. (5)The same is usually true for a person's charities. (6) It is also true for the politics of someone not primarily or significantly a politician. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment: 1. "An encyclopedia is supposed to be discriminating, not just in what it covers, but the way it covers them." - Yes, but the way Wikipedia "discriminates" is mainly by checking if secondary sources talk about a subject in detail. With Michael Pollack there are many, many, many substantial newspaper articles written about him across a several year span. 2. "It is a common technique of promotional articles to try to show how the subject's career developed out of the miscellaneous jobs or hobbies they had in high school." - But in this case it's the "technique" of several secondary (newspaper) sources written about Pollack himself. The section on what he did in high school is sourced from the East Valley Tribune, The Business Journal, and the Arizona Republic. So what happens when RSes talk about this aspect of his life? This is not being sourced from his personal website. 3. "Using multiple quotes from the subject giving his views of why he did something is almost always a promotional technique, designed to provide human interest. Human interest is a technique for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. The 3rd paragraph of that section is a good example, as is the 3rd paragraph of the Arizona career." - On WP I learned there are many instances when doing so is perfectly justifiable. I.E. in fiction talking about why a creative author did something. And careful attention should be given to what the subject is saying. In the Houston section he said "I was promoting day and night. To me, it was a job" - What he meant was that his "stud image" was an intentional act used to promote a business which wasn't grasped upon/said at the time. And part of that was other entities lying about his living location (saying he lived in Colonial House when he didn't). That's not promotional. The third paragraph merely states how Pollack does his business, and it says nothing about his personal views. 4. "The names of someone's children can be appropriate information, if they are widely known, or they appear in sources that the subject authorized. The details of their careers are not." - In regards to "or they appear in sources that the subject authorized" then I just have to see Pollack's website and see if it refers to his son??? - Within the Phoenix business community Pollack's son was involved in his father's business and was in many local organizations. Plus his death made him "known." Notice that the other two children haven't been named, just Daniel Pollack. 5. "(4) Elaborate treatment of someone's hobbies is rarely appropriate only for the famous. (5)The same is usually true for a person's charities. (6) It is also true for the politics of someone not primarily or significantly a politician." - In this instance all three subjects are discussed by secondary newspaper articles and I'm pretty sure several of the Arizona newspaper articles make a point of Pollack being a philanthropist. And there are instances where well known non-politicians get involved in political issues and controversies. KTVK says " a well-known Valley businessman, real-estate developer and philanthropist." Phoenix Business Journal says "Mesa real estate investor and philanthropist Michael Pollack" The Arizona Republic via 12 News says: "Michael Pollack is known for philanthropic contributions to the community. " I say he is a "philanthropist" based on what other sources say about him explicitly. An article on a subject is more or less based on what reliable sources say about the subject. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Question DGG, is this an argument for why you personally wouldn't write this article, or is it reasoning to delete/not recreate this article based on Wikipedia policy and guideline, within the consensus interpretations and applications by the Wikipedia community of those policies and guidelines? Not a rhetorical question, this is really an area I don't know as much about as I should. I totally see what you are saying and share many of your concerns regarding article content. I never would have picked this guy to write an article about, and I do agree that the "final" version of this article should be a few paragraphs. However, if you're saying delete, you seem to be upholding a standard much higher than what general consensus is, which I appreciate, but I'm not sure it's in line with general Wikipedia community consensus. My understanding is that Wikipedia has the 'keep' standard much lower than any printed resource. I looked at the sources and read the WP:BIO guideline, and Pollack seems to hop over it. `Zad68` 01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree in general, and I normally do not make these requirements in AfD arguments, because articles can always be improved. When I see something I think excessive in an article, I know what to do about it, and it's to improve the article by removing the excess. In a very few cases, where the editor insists on writing really excessively and is an SPA, rather than keep reverting, taken it to AfD & it generally gets deleted. But I see here a fixed determination to write more of an article than I think warranted. My advice here to an inexperienced user is that in borderline notability situations, a modest article but with good references is much more likely to be kept. But WTM is not at all inexperienced, and, frankly I hoped he'd understand me well enough to take the hint and tone it down a little, in which case I would have withdrawn the objections--I consider this to be one of his rare misjudgments. I'm not going to get into an argument here about the points raised above. My view alone won't hold him back from doing what he wants unless there's a consensus for it. I take a relatively not bureaucratic approach to Deletion Review, as the last normal step, it behooves us to deal with the essence, not the technicalities. I know many people here say just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] In any case I wrote User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack as a rebuttal of sorts, saying that "no, I do not feel that it's undue to talk about these aspects" - how can I "he'd understand me well enough to take the hint and tone it down a little, in which case I would have withdrawn the objections" when the sources don't do that? If he wants to defend the assertion that "I see here a fixed determination to write more of an article than I think warranted" then he's going to have to go over the section I put together and explain how it's still undue. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that the sources themselves put an importance on matters that would seem excessive. There are articles which talk about his childhood, articles which talk about his hobbies, articles which talk about his philanthropy. Yes, I am an experienced editor, and what I learned over 9 years is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects existing literature about a subject. The focus on these matters is a reflection of what newspaper articles say about him. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The draft[1] obviously was written with a number of subsections to POV promote philanthropy, views, and other aspects of Mr. Pollack that would not otherwise make it into the article or whose importance would be significantly diminished by being put into perspective were the article written to convey Pollack's life chronologically. Allowing recreation of an article requires establishing that the reasons for deletion have been over come. From all the sources in the draft, the topic meets WP:GNG. However, the AfD also brought the problems of "BLP that seems to be promotion", "Pollack was well known in Houston for promoting," "one begins "This is an advertisement!" "Sources do not back up claims in article." In view of DGG's post above, I don't think these have yet been overcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have responded to DGG's post. Please understand the following: 1. Being known for promotion is not the same thing as promoting someone. It's perfectly A-OK to write about a person who engages in promotion. It's about how the article is written. If there is a problem with that, pleaser suggest how to rewrite it 2. The draft I have has a far larger amount of sources than the ones brought up in the AFD and the one that starts with "this is an advertisement" is not used in my draft, only placed in further reading 3. The newspaper sources say he is a philantrophist which is why it is discussed; it's not a promotion: it's a reflection of what sources say about him. 4. The problem with DGG's reasoning is that it doesn't reflect what sources say about Pollack. These are newspaper sources, not his personal website. If newspapers discuss his hobbies in entire articles then the article should discuss them. If the articles discuss his childhood in detail, if the articles say he is a philantrophist, etc. DGG's post does not account for these things. That is the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - this DRV seems to be slipping into discussing things that can be cleaned up over time. There seems to be general agreement that Pollock meets WP:GNG. The question is whether the details are excessive. 'Less is more' would be a good mantra for this article! I don't see why the article can't be re-created and worked on (maybe by a number of the contributors here). Its difficult to work on imroving the article when the only draft is at AfC and authored solely by WhispertoMe. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I'll be happy to discuss how trim the article etc. based on the sourcing available, etc. If you think it's better the article can be put into the mainspace, and then on the talk page I can make a section asking "How to trim this article?" and then I can explain there the basis for each section (Why each section exists, which sources support each section) and then ask "how should they be trimmed?" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I went ahead and started User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack, outlining why these sections exist and what sources support them. Should I just ask people to move the trimming down discussion here? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is is significant undue weight given to aspects of Pollack's life that are locally notable but do not rise to WP:GNG. WTM's case for the notability of all these aspects of Pollack's life is based on sources and does not address the issues of proportion and perspective. I oppose moving this to article namespace until this has been resolved. Joja lozzo 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] "issues of proportion and perspective" and those are based precisely on the # of sources that discuss these issues. Read User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack and notice the number of sources that talk about these supposedly "undue" aspects. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am not seeing support for your position nor much understanding of the consensus on your part and I had hoped to express the prevailing view in a new way that you might better hear. The number sources is only one of several criteria for determining notability. What do you think are the others? Joja lozzo 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michael Pollack – DGG's intervention is, at least to me, sufficient to justify looking further than the GNG aspects and asking whether UNDUE and BLP have been properly considered in the draft. That these issues have gained traction in the discussion once raised is indicative that I should give them more weight than earlier votes that did not consider this and I am also mindful that GNG is a guideline and BLP is a policy and therefore has more weight. On that basis I do not find a consensus that this article is ready for mainspace and urge the nominator to look hard at the draft and work on the issues raised by DGG before bringing this back for further discussion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I have made a new version at User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack (also at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Pollack) but because an earlier version had been recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack), some editors cautioned against a bold move to the mainspace.

Other discussion venues:

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4_for_an_article_about_an_AFD.27ed_topic_which_has_new_sources
Wikipedia:Notability_noticeboard#Notability_of_Michael_Pollack
User_talk:Karanacs#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD)
User_talk:SwisterTwister#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD)
User_talk:WhisperToMe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation (related to articles for creation)
User_talk:Sionk#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FMichael_Pollack (related to articles for creation) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who originally started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack stated concerns that the new sources being used fall under Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine_coverage. We need to review what that means.

"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)."

Which sources are characterized like this? The death of Pollack's son, for instance, is not treated as a "routine" announcement but as a locally high profile accident that lead to controversy (Joe Arpaio soapboxed about illegal immigrants after information about the perpetrator was found) - There are numerous sources that are not characterized like this WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not seeing anything in the history of the rewritten pages before the article was deleted at AfD. The question in my mind is whether the current draft is "substantially identical" to the deleted version of the article. Can someone help over this? WhisperToMe says it is not. I think others are saying it is / may be / can only be substantially identical. I think it is the "identical" issue that DRV should address prior to any move to main space or relisting, not whether the new draft shows notability. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The old article was at Michael Pollack - I'm not sure what steps need to be taken for the content to be made public WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The death of Pollack's son, for instance, is not treated as a "routine"... the problem with that is that it's not someone writing about Pollock, because Pollock is notable, it's someone writing about the death because that's "interesting", anything about Pollock is a result of that interest not any direct notablity of Pollock. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for it to be substantial coverage, the article doesn't have to be completely about the subject, but instead it just has to give "non-trivial" coverage. I was able to use articles about Pollack's son's death to source details about Pollack himself. In addition, the principle is that info about non-notable family is covered in the article about the notable person, so info about Pollack's son is covered in the article of his father. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's rather circular, you want to include it to make him notable, and then as he's notable it's ok to include it since his son isn't. Yes it doesn't have to be 100 about Pollock, but it becomes routine coverage about him, your argument about it not being routine is because of the events surrouding his son, not him. It's routine to mention the family in such articles. You already declared it in your summary, the soapboxing about immigrants etc. drove interest, not Pollock. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree too there are some 'red herrings' which may raise suspicions amongst some. But the death of Pollack's son is not the basis for the article, it is incidental. The fundamentals for satisfying WP:GNG are elsewhere in the new article. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Firstly, yes, the son's death is not the primary focus of the article. Also, again, Pollack's son's death cannot be considered routine. This is routine: "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." and "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" - When a son of a prominent business leader dies suddenly in what could be a negligent death, and Pollack asks for a $10K reward for info, and then the suspect is found to possibly be an illegal, and Joe Arpaio uses it to say "let's go after illegals" that is not routine coverage WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep article (and add any coverage that wasn't discovered at the time). I declined the 'new' article at AfC and suggested WhisperToMe opened this DRV. In all honesty, there is ample news coverage over a considerable period and in normal circumstances I would have had little problem in moving the article to main article space. However, because WhisperToMe had been open in declaring the recent AfD, I found it difficult to understand why the many substantial news sources had not been available at the AfD (which had concluded only 10 days before the article was recreated). Pollack's website has comprehensive lists of press coverage with transcripts. At AfD the participants dismissed the extant press coverage as local and insignificant, which is bizarre in my view, considering the size/population of Houston/Arizona! Sionk (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. The old article was blatant puffery; WhisperToMe's rewrite is a vast improvement. I'm hesitant to overturn the original discussion because of that, though I do think WhisperToMe's late discovery of proper sourcing went unnoticed. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep, the proposed article provides significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. It appears these sources simply weren't uncovered at the AFD (I never got to see the version of the article that was AFD'd), or weren't considered thoroughly, which is fine--it happens, that's why we have the DELREV process. At WP:BIO, we don't have specialty criteria for businesspeople, but I see at WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" meet notability requirements, and I see at WP:CORP(hey, "Corporations are people" right? :-P ) it says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." So there's some precedent for considering "local" people as notable, and "regional" media coverage counts. The above line of argument that the sources found should be discounted as 'routine coverage' does not seem to have any merit or grounding in Wikipedia guidelines. Zad68 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is I suppose a very hard-working individual who has had success in real estate in Arizona (obviously not so much in Texas). I will note that coverage by the Phoenix Business Journal is basically routine; it's just that you didn't use to read that back in 2003-2008 during the real estate boom. Truly, there must be at least 40-50 people like Pollack in Phoenix.

Beyond that, the only substantive claims to notability I can see are in the Career in Arizona and western states section. Removing the fluff (sorry), I suppose that's enough to pass WP:GNG. Because the rest:

"Real Estate Entrepreneur of the Year", by a non-notable organization.
"Young Builder of the Year" by non-notable organization
Unsourced claim that Gov. Jane Hull recognized him somehow. Sorry, couldn't find that anywhere.

Promoted an apartment complex in Houston, which eventually folded.
Opened a jewelry store.
Arrives by limousine to events wearing a suit.
Had a fan club in highschool.
Has an awesome mane of hair.

The death of his son is tragic but irrelevant; Joe Arpaio will pontificate about illegal immigration if a fly lands on his hat. I should know, since I live in Phoenix. The music section looks impressive, except that it's actually tied to the notability of the crappy move theater in Tempe (you have no idea how crappy that place, but that's also irrelevant).

I brought the original version of the article to AFD because it was poorly sourced and the creator was, according to his user page, an "internet marketer" of some sort, whose sole contribution to the encyclopedia was this article, if I remember correctly.

Aside from that, I have no opinion either way as to whether this should stay deleted or not. I have a feeling this is all just impressive WP:ROUTINE with local scope, but I'll let other editors decide that. I will note that the biography is probably too extensive and filled with irrelevant puffery (sorry, I understand you wanted to make this look nice), so I'd only recommend pairing it down a bit if it's going to get moved to article space again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Truly, there must be at least 40-50 people like Pollack in Phoenix." - If so, then try to write an article about them. That type of argument was used in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California (there are other Hmong communities like this one, so why do we have an article on this one?) to try to discount the subject's notability. The argument was rejected by the editor base, and the article was kept.

2. "Unsourced claim that Gov. Jane Hull recognized him somehow. Sorry, couldn't find that anywhere." - That is not unsourced. It is sourced to reference#19 - Anonymous. "2001 Valley Influential: Michael Pollack." The Business Journal. American City Business Journals, October 12, 2001. Volume 22, Issue 2. p. 38. ISSN 08951632. Available at ProQuest. - The entire block of text "By 2001 he had [...] retail space in Arizona, California, and Nevada." is sourced to reference #19. - There is a re-post of Ref#19 at Pollack's website at http://www.pollackinvestments.com/press10_2001_businessjournal.html - which says "He also has been recognized by Arizona Gov. Jane Hull."

3. "The death of his son is tragic but irrelevant; Joe Arpaio will pontificate about illegal immigration if a fly lands on his hat. " - Pay close attention to the references; the references make it clear that the man's death was important because he was Pollack's son - This is a classic case of "relative of a notable person." Pollack was active in campaigning for info, offering a cash reward. The father was clearly involved in the aftermath, so it is relevant to Michael Pollack the person. And you may feel that Arpaio's campaigns are silly/muckracking/whatever - that doesn't change the fact that Arpaio made an issue of it, full stop, making it non-routine.

4. Re: "Real Estate Entrepreneur of the Year" and "Young Builder of the Year" they were stated in a newspaper source, not by primary source articles from the organizations. Even though the awards themselves don't have Wikipedia articles, there has to be some way of assessing notability in major metropolitan areas from awards issued by local or national trade organizations.

5. " I will note that coverage by the Phoenix Business Journal is basically routine" - Which articles are "routine" and why?

The articles on the new strip center and/or new purchases and the NFL Haiti relief could be deemed routine (feedback from other editors could be welcome?) - The NFL Haiti relief article and the Goodwill article are used as supporting info, to show what philanthropic works that Pollack did (he is known for philanthropy, and has supported Goodwill for a long time). The articles on new developments are used to support general details that Pollack is known for ([Pollack is] "known for his full head of hair, flashy cars and eccentric collection of advertising memorabilia").

The articles on Pollack's son's death are not routine for the reasons I state above.

"New rules would rein in sales of copper AC coils." is not routine - when somebody is making a campaign to change state laws, it's not a routine matter.

"Most Admired CEOs: Michael Pollack" - I don't think that's considered routine. It's a ranking of prominent business leaders.

6. The way "Because the rest:" makes it sound insignificant. That's not how it really should be phrased. That's not how it should be summarized. This is how it should be written:

Promoted an apartment complex in Houston which was extensively promoted over television advertisements which had enticing advertisements, leading to local notability, which eventually folded. (Don't all businesses eventually fold?)

As a consequence of the advertisements and the suave image he cultivated in Houston, Pollack became a local celebrity. As evidence of that:

Had a fan club that was established in a highschool and the said high school conducted an interview of Pollack (this is not a main detail, but a supporting detail of the point that he had local notability)

Appeared at nightclubs

emceed beauty pageants

hosted a talk show

loaned a car to the Fawcett-O'Neal entourage

While doing business in Arizona, Pollack continued to have a suave image

Has an awesome mane of hair. (now you know "Has an awesome mane of hair." is in fact an important detail, because it is a part of the above)

Arrives by limousine to events. And while doing business he is wearing a particular type of suit.

Opened a jewelry store. was something he did in between Houston and Arizona. It's there just to state what he did in between these phases.

Many of the points you made were supporting details that show how he cultivated his persona/did business/etc

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FreeRangeFrog seems to be arguing that the article be deleted because passing, routine coverage exists. They seem to be ignoring the fact that substantial coverage over a considerable period exists too. For example the two Houston Chronicle articles from 1987 and 2008 commence by saying Pollack's "name became a household word following an extensive ad campaign ...two years ago" and "there has never been a phenomenon quite like Michael Pollack". I've never been a supporter of businessmen having vanity pages on Wikipedia, but in this case Pollack seems to be a very newsworthy individual over 25+ years. The one criticism I'd make of WhisperToMe is their inclusion of every minor mention too, which in some instances may be WP:UNDUE and distracts from the key sources. That would demand clean-up, not deletion. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like I said, I am not offering a !vote here either way. I voiced my opinion on the revised draft, and that's it. Someone below brought up a concern I honestly couldn't bring myself to voice (COI), but that would be irrelevant if WP:GNG is being met in the first place. Again, I will let others decide where this goes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question @WhisperToMe: do you seriously think that your article is appropriate coverage for someone of marginal notability? I think we could justify a short article on him as a person of sufficient regional notability, but proposing an article of this sort does not support the case for restoration, but rather the reverse: given a choice between an article of that degree of detail, and no article at all, the encyclopedia would be better off having none. I know that's not a formal criterion, but if we're going to have to deal with this sort of content, my judgment would be keep deleted, by IAR if necessary, until someone writes an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree that the proposed article itself needs work and contains far too much extraneous detail, but on Wikipedia, notability (Should there be an article on something?) is an entirely separate question of the current quality of the article itself. Zad68 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Considering that an article with too much detail on a notable subject is better than having no article, but not as good as a polished article, my answer to #1 is yes. About "I think we could justify a short article on him as a person of sufficient regional notability[...]" as stated by other users this is a question of notability. The article demonstrates that the subject is notable, therefore the article should be moved to the mainspace. I am happy to have this article edited and polished after it's moved (or if someone wants to post suggestions on specific passages to improve...). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the original article was indeed created by an "internet marketer" as stated above, it seems likely that a more reasonable article would be constantly ballooning into something like this anyway. It doesn't seem worth the effort to maintain in the face of demonstrated self-promotion. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also about "[...]it seems likely that a more reasonable article would be constantly ballooning into something like this anyway. It doesn't seem worth the effort to maintain in the face of demonstrated self-promotion." the article can always be reverted and protected to prevent self-promotion. Someone can post an alert on the NPOV noticeboard to say "somebody promoting themselves is editing the article" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation. Allow any user to list at AfD.. Recommend a toning down of the promotional feel. User:WhisperToMe appears to have sufficient editing experience. Can he please assure us that there is no WP:COI issue here? The subject appears notable. The draft beats CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Where do you feel there is a promotional feel to the article? 2. There is no COI issue here. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The promotional feel? The writing style is too close to the subject. It is not "objective, from a distance". It feels like it is written by his personal assistant modified to meet the letter of Wikipedia policy. It have no sense of how the subject connects to other notable subjects. What other articles would link to this biography? If none, that is a strong indicator that it is not suitable I have not gone thought the references to check that there are at least two strictly "secondary source", reputable and independent sources of direct coverage of the subject, as that is a question for discussion at AfD. Read every sentence by DGG slowly and carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The idea that it sounds too promotional sounds strange to me. You may want to compare the article I wrote to the one that actually was deleted in the AFD. Or maybe to this. The article that was deleted was truly a promotional article. I've written articles for Wikipedia for years and so I believe I have a handle on how to write an article on an encyclopedic tone, and I understood that I had to say "this is how he is notable" hence why there are statistics on, say, how many properties his companies own or how much square footage they have, but that doesn't translate into being promotional. Also not everything in the "Houston" section of the new article I wrote is particularly flattering. If you think there are ways to phrase particular passages in a less promotional way, I'll be happy to hear it. I really need to be pointed to particular passages.
    - "It have no sense of how the subject connects to other notable subjects." -One is Gulfton, Houston, where that Colonial House Apartments complex was located. Pollack can be linked from the Arizona cities where he lives/works. Plus also on any article about Metal theft since Pollack is politically active in that arena.
    - WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, I support the recreation. I'm warning here of weak points that might be significant in a possible future AfD. Maybe this guy really is an All-American Good Guy Hero, but some impartial criticism seems missing. Connecting this bio to other current articles would be a good thing to do. Of course, you first have to put it into mainspace before introducing incoming links from other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. In that case I wrote User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack to show how and why each section exists so people can then talk about how to slim down the article there. I want more criticism too honestly but other than the Houston Chronicle source that talks about the shaminess behind the 1980s Houston marketing I am not seeing criticism in any of the sources that I found on him. There are no sources that talk about criticism of Pollack in Arizona. In order for me to find criticism, sources with criticism have to exist first WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just commenting at the AFD closer that I am aware of this debate and believe I followed proper process, but am happy to accept if the community feels circumstances have changed. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify what may seem as a position inconsistent with many of my comments elsewhere: There are only certain limited instances where I support deletion & reconstruction instead of fixing. The obvious ones are copyvio, when there's no non-copyvio version to revert to, or an attack page with no decent version in history. There's also incoherency of various sorts, where there's nothing worth saving.

Nobody would save these, & it is no accident that they are speedy criteria. I add to that another speedy criterion, blatant promotionalism. Previously, I would have only suggested removing exceptionally blatant & unremovable promotionalism. My standard now is the level at which I would delete via G11; and i would even support a little less than that, with consensus--not as speedy. I consider the article to have been at that level. It wasn't just somewhat excessive, it was wildly disproportionate. The defender of the article seems not to realize that, and this is another reason I would delete. The proper length for a barely notable subject is one or two paragraphs, unless sometimes it takes a little longer to explain, which is not the case here. As for the question of where there is promotional text that has just been asked, promotionalism is not just a question of a list of taboo words, but an overall approach that has no apparent purpose except to magnify the importance of the subject. An encyclopedia is supposed to be discriminating, not just in what it covers, but the way it covers them. As this is a matter of judgment, the only way to decide is informed consensus.

so here are the factors that inform my view of it: (1) the paragraph on high school career. It is a common technique of promotional articles to try to show how the subject's career developed out of the miscellaneous jobs or hobbies they had in high school. As such material always rests on the subjects own memories, & are normally sourced to interviews with him, I consider this unreliable -- and inappropriate for anyone except the famous, especially where the work of true biographers may have actually found some objective evidence. (2) Related to this are details about his first business endeavors. For a business persons, they're worth mentioning, but not in as much detail, any more than would be a scientist's student papers. The 2nd sentence of the second paragraph of "Career in Houston" is an example. (3)Using multiple quotes from the subject giving his views of why he did something is almost always a promotional technique, designed to provide human interest. Human interest is a technique for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. The 3rd paragraph of that section is a good example, as is the 3rd paragraph of the Arizona career. (3) The names of someone's children can be appropriate information, if they are widely known, or they appear in sources that the subject authorized. The details of their careers are not. (4) Elaborate treatment of someone's hobbies is rarely appropriate only for the famous. (5)The same is usually true for a person's charities. (6) It is also true for the politics of someone not primarily or significantly a politician. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

1. "An encyclopedia is supposed to be discriminating, not just in what it covers, but the way it covers them." - Yes, but the way Wikipedia "discriminates" is mainly by checking if secondary sources talk about a subject in detail. With Michael Pollack there are many, many, many substantial newspaper articles written about him across a several year span.

2. "It is a common technique of promotional articles to try to show how the subject's career developed out of the miscellaneous jobs or hobbies they had in high school." - But in this case it's the "technique" of several secondary (newspaper) sources written about Pollack himself. The section on what he did in high school is sourced from the East Valley Tribune, The Business Journal, and the Arizona Republic. So what happens when RSes talk about this aspect of his life? This is not being sourced from his personal website.

3. "Using multiple quotes from the subject giving his views of why he did something is almost always a promotional technique, designed to provide human interest. Human interest is a technique for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. The 3rd paragraph of that section is a good example, as is the 3rd paragraph of the Arizona career." - On WP I learned there are many instances when doing so is perfectly justifiable. I.E. in fiction talking about why a creative author did something. And careful attention should be given to what the subject is saying. In the Houston section he said "I was promoting day and night. To me, it was a job" - What he meant was that his "stud image" was an intentional act used to promote a business which wasn't grasped upon/said at the time. And part of that was other entities lying about his living location (saying he lived in Colonial House when he didn't). That's not promotional. The third paragraph merely states how Pollack does his business, and it says nothing about his personal views.

4. "The names of someone's children can be appropriate information, if they are widely known, or they appear in sources that the subject authorized. The details of their careers are not." - In regards to "or they appear in sources that the subject authorized" then I just have to see Pollack's website and see if it refers to his son??? - Within the Phoenix business community Pollack's son was involved in his father's business and was in many local organizations. Plus his death made him "known." Notice that the other two children haven't been named, just Daniel Pollack.

5. "(4) Elaborate treatment of someone's hobbies is rarely appropriate only for the famous. (5)The same is usually true for a person's charities. (6) It is also true for the politics of someone not primarily or significantly a politician." - In this instance all three subjects are discussed by secondary newspaper articles and I'm pretty sure several of the Arizona newspaper articles make a point of Pollack being a philanthropist. And there are instances where well known non-politicians get involved in political issues and controversies.

KTVK says " a well-known Valley businessman, real-estate developer and philanthropist."

Phoenix Business Journal says "Mesa real estate investor and philanthropist Michael Pollack"

The Arizona Republic via 12 News says: "Michael Pollack is known for philanthropic contributions to the community. "

I say he is a "philanthropist" based on what other sources say about him explicitly. An article on a subject is more or less based on what reliable sources say about the subject.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question DGG, is this an argument for why you personally wouldn't write this article, or is it reasoning to delete/not recreate this article based on Wikipedia policy and guideline, within the consensus interpretations and applications by the Wikipedia community of those policies and guidelines? Not a rhetorical question, this is really an area I don't know as much about as I should. I totally see what you are saying and share many of your concerns regarding article content. I never would have picked this guy to write an article about, and I do agree that the "final" version of this article should be a few paragraphs. However, if you're saying delete, you seem to be upholding a standard much higher than what general consensus is, which I appreciate, but I'm not sure it's in line with general Wikipedia community consensus. My understanding is that Wikipedia has the 'keep' standard much lower than any printed resource. I looked at the sources and read the WP:BIO guideline, and Pollack seems to hop over it. Zad68 01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general, and I normally do not make these requirements in AfD arguments, because articles can always be improved. When I see something I think excessive in an article, I know what to do about it, and it's to improve the article by removing the excess. In a very few cases, where the editor insists on writing really excessively and is an SPA, rather than keep reverting, taken it to AfD & it generally gets deleted. But I see here a fixed determination to write more of an article than I think warranted. My advice here to an inexperienced user is that in borderline notability situations, a modest article but with good references is much more likely to be kept. But WTM is not at all inexperienced, and, frankly I hoped he'd understand me well enough to take the hint and tone it down a little, in which case I would have withdrawn the objections--I consider this to be one of his rare misjudgments. I'm not going to get into an argument here about the points raised above. My view alone won't hold him back from doing what he wants unless there's a consensus for it. I take a relatively not bureaucratic approach to Deletion Review, as the last normal step, it behooves us to deal with the essence, not the technicalities. I know many people here say just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I wrote User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack as a rebuttal of sorts, saying that "no, I do not feel that it's undue to talk about these aspects" - how can I "he'd understand me well enough to take the hint and tone it down a little, in which case I would have withdrawn the objections" when the sources don't do that? If he wants to defend the assertion that "I see here a fixed determination to write more of an article than I think warranted" then he's going to have to go over the section I put together and explain how it's still undue. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources themselves put an importance on matters that would seem excessive. There are articles which talk about his childhood, articles which talk about his hobbies, articles which talk about his philanthropy. Yes, I am an experienced editor, and what I learned over 9 years is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects existing literature about a subject. The focus on these matters is a reflection of what newspaper articles say about him. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The draft[1] obviously was written with a number of subsections to POV promote philanthropy, views, and other aspects of Mr. Pollack that would not otherwise make it into the article or whose importance would be significantly diminished by being put into perspective were the article written to convey Pollack's life chronologically. Allowing recreation of an article requires establishing that the reasons for deletion have been over come. From all the sources in the draft, the topic meets WP:GNG. However, the AfD also brought the problems of "BLP that seems to be promotion", "Pollack was well known in Houston for promoting," "one begins "This is an advertisement!" "Sources do not back up claims in article." In view of DGG's post above, I don't think these have yet been overcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I have responded to DGG's post. Please understand the following:

1. Being known for promotion is not the same thing as promoting someone. It's perfectly A-OK to write about a person who engages in promotion. It's about how the article is written. If there is a problem with that, pleaser suggest how to rewrite it

2. The draft I have has a far larger amount of sources than the ones brought up in the AFD and the one that starts with "this is an advertisement" is not used in my draft, only placed in further reading

3. The newspaper sources say he is a philantrophist which is why it is discussed; it's not a promotion: it's a reflection of what sources say about him.

4. The problem with DGG's reasoning is that it doesn't reflect what sources say about Pollack. These are newspaper sources, not his personal website. If newspapers discuss his hobbies in entire articles then the article should discuss them. If the articles discuss his childhood in detail, if the articles say he is a philantrophist, etc. DGG's post does not account for these things. That is the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this DRV seems to be slipping into discussing things that can be cleaned up over time. There seems to be general agreement that Pollock meets WP:GNG. The question is whether the details are excessive. 'Less is more' would be a good mantra for this article! I don't see why the article can't be re-created and worked on (maybe by a number of the contributors here). Its difficult to work on imroving the article when the only draft is at AfC and authored solely by WhispertoMe. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'll be happy to discuss how trim the article etc. based on the sourcing available, etc. If you think it's better the article can be put into the mainspace, and then on the talk page I can make a section asking "How to trim this article?" and then I can explain there the basis for each section (Why each section exists, which sources support each section) and then ask "how should they be trimmed?" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went ahead and started User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack, outlining why these sections exist and what sources support them. Should I just ask people to move the trimming down discussion here? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is is significant undue weight given to aspects of Pollack's life that are locally notable but do not rise to WP:GNG. WTM's case for the notability of all these aspects of Pollack's life is based on sources and does not address the issues of proportion and perspective. I oppose moving this to article namespace until this has been resolved. Jojalozzo 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "issues of proportion and perspective" and those are based precisely on the # of sources that discuss these issues. Read User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack and notice the number of sources that talk about these supposedly "undue" aspects. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not seeing support for your position nor much understanding of the consensus on your part and I had hoped to express the prevailing view in a new way that you might better hear. The number sources is only one of several criteria for determining notability. What do you think are the others? Joja lozzo 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.