This is an AFD of a person with a couple of unconnected minor incidents in which they briefly made the media, and at which accusations of meat (connected individuals) or sockpuppetry (multiple accounts) or at least
WP:SPA use, were raised. I have therefore summed up the close in detail, and remind newcomers to AFD that AFD is not a vote; it is a chance for individuals to raise policy related points concerning the article.
Relevant points from policy:
- Motive of article creation is irrelevant. We assess the article, and its capability to be meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria, not its creators intentions.
- WP:NOT -- merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia
- WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N -- brief mentions or transient interest in the press do not necessarily make a person's biography encyclopedic. That an article is cited does not necessarily attest to it being notable. The two are different.
- (WP:NOT#NEWS cite: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events ... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.")
- WP:BLP1E -- people famous for one event are usually linked to an article mentioning the event. ("Cover the event, not the person")
- WP:COI -- "Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia [neutral encyclopedic reporting]. ... Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is ... if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly..."
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- articles at AFD are decided on their own merits, not by comparison to other stuff. Likewise "There are many more people living and dead who do not have articles and deserve them much more".
- WP:NOTINHERITED -- notability is not inherited.
- WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING -- that an item is "useful" or "interesting" does not mean it is necessarily encyclopedic.
There is one policy-based "keep" point, by user:DGG ("Using [a DVD] to burn the first recordable DVD at Bill Gates keynote at comdex is another matter--Comdex is not just another trade show") -- notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the issue is not whether comdex is notable, but whether we would usually 1/ consider this achievement notable, or 2/ consider that it made the person who operated the recording notable.
Examining the article itself, there are only two items in it - a claim that he "pioneered" real-time DVD authoring, and that an internet cafe he ran was a finalist in a yahoo competition. Unfortunately these do not much help. The "pioneering" turns out on examination of cites to mean he was a co-party to a publicity incident or trade show first demo, namely the burning of a dvd before a speech had finished (which is actually all that he did, working with world class video editing multinational Pinnacle). This really is not a very strong basis or notable event to justify an article, even though comdex is very well known as a show (WP:NOTINHERITED). If it were to make anything notable at all, it would attest to notability of the businesses or the event, not person. Being a finalist in the cometition does not seem to have encouraged the presentation by anyone of a strong case for notability either, at this debate.
Looking at the deletion discussion therefore:
- This press release describes the DVD demo as a first. But doesn't really give much notability to the subject - as Weregerbil says, it's hard to see how being the operator makes him notable in the sense that this was not at all about him, as a person. It could have been anyone holding the camera or operating the software for the companies Opulent Media and Pinnacle, and may well have been.
- Most of the comments for "keep" seem to be saying either it is a"quality stub", or that it is useful, or interesting. A few consider as weak keeps, whether the dvd issue is a contribution towards notability. However once the many non-arguments are filtered (which account for much of the "keep"s), there is a strong AFD view that it does not, or does not sufficiently, and that the article should be deleted.
I therefore concur with the nomination. AFD is based upon Wikipedia article criteria and policy, and consensus which draw on these. As noted above, there are good reasons both in policy, and the events being referenced, and the stance of contributors at AFD, to agree that ultimately, this article and discussion do not in fact attest to the subject himself being sufficiently notable to meet biographical inclusion criteria.