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 keep. MBisanztalk 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject not notable per WP:N. Appears to be a page created for self-promotion. Circumspect (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't this obvious? Looking at the cited references alone I'm confused by this nomination. Refs #1, 2, and 4 quickly seem to prove notability. Ref #3 is a Youtube video of a newscast that would (if referenced on the original airing network's site instead of Youtube) provide similar support. The references aren't massively biographical, but each provides some depth. If there's any evidence this is 'self-promotion' I don't see it, and, even if it is self promotion, the references show that the subject is notable. Celtechm (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is the subject of some high-profile trend pieces, but the depth of those pieces falls far short of establishing notability. Furthermore, the article has all the signs of being self-promotion, like including the date of the subject's birth without a source. That information comes from the article creator, using the Wikipedia user name "Williamsburgwriter" whose only contributions as an editor have been articles related to the subject. The article sources establish that the subject of the article is a writer living in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, so it certainly appears to be a case of WP:AB, a practice strongly discouraged. Circumspect (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But... I agree that it's sort of ridiculous that this guy is notable. His 'claims to fame' are silly and trivial, but they were considered noteworthy by editors and published in RS. I think notability, depth, and etc is achieved in the refs #1, #2 and #4 alone, whether you or I or anyone else particularly likes it. The PBS article devotes @275 words to Sutton and the BBC article @225. The article in the Sydney newspaper uses him as the feature and devotes 500 words to him. I didn't bother to even look at/for other references. While his notability may be based upon "Tend Pieces", Notabilty isn't temporary. And while I follow your logic that he may have written the page himself (Certainly it was him or someone who knows him), that doesn't make the topic non-notable. If the guidelines change so that we delete every page created by someone with a potential POV or COI, then we should delete this (along with 10,000s of other articles). Until that happens, current guidelines indicate that it should stay. Celtechm (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's precisely because notability is not temporary that the article should be deleted. The WP:NTEMP policy says "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." The subject of this article meets that criterion. WP:NRVE states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest[...]" These rules appear to have been crafted to avoid just this sort of article. Being the fleeting subject of some articles even from highly reputable secondary sources isn't sufficient to establish notability. I don't harbor any personal objection to the publicity the subject has received (I think what he did was quite admirable, really) but the article simply doesn't meet the spirit or the letter of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Circumspect (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the transparent violation of WP:AB only underscores what this article is. Violating WP:AB is a bit more telling than a mere COI or lack of NPOV. It's a flashing red light that tells us the article violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Circumspect (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To your first point, I think the coverage actually is for 2 separate themes in Sutton's biography... His founding of a website and his example of participation in a minimalist movement... The coverage spans a few years of interest and is not "only in the context of a single event". If there's an issue around WP:AB that supports deletion in and of itself (I'm not aware of one), then that becomes another question. But on the notability guideline, I still think it is met Celtechm (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The participation in a minimalist movement isn't notable at all; the press coverage appears to stem from the site itself, so there aren't two "separate themes" in the subject's biography, at least as far as the sources that would confer notability go. The web site appears to be exactly the sort of fleeting "short-term interest" described in WP:NRVE. It hasn't been updated since 2010, and there's no evidence of any lasting influence or notoriety beyond three weeks in 2010 when the site got some press. I don't argue that the page's violation of WP:AB constitutes a prima facie case for deletion, but I do argue that it's a strong piece of evidence that the article transparently violates WP:NOTPROMOTION which, combined with the article's clear violation of the letter and spirit of the notability criteria quoted above, puts the article far out of bounds under Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Circumspect (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, passes bar, sufficient sourcing.--Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 21:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starting two non-notable web sites does not amount to notability ,and there is nothing else there. ` DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing seems to suggest this person meets WP:BIO. Mkdwtalk 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources PBS, CNN, and BBC. I think this meets the minimum bar of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are about his website's and not about Michael directly. Mkdwtalk 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep (a little reluctantly, for I am not particularly eager to have as many articles as possible about internet celebrities; looking at this again, I think my previous delete !vote, which I just struck. reflects that prejudice of mine, which is not a fair way of judging notability). But the BBC and CNN stories are substantially about the person, and the one in the Chronicle of higher education is definitely predominantly and substantially about the person. They're not a news source given to hype or sensational human interest, It may be true that many or even most of the sources listed are mainly about his web site, but it is enough that three very good sources are substantially about him. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 19 December 2012 (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.