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 delete. Even if not a copyvio, the few notability concerns have not been addressed (that other topics have a page does not mean this one can as well) and all keep !voters are SPAs and aren't addressing notability issues, either.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep Just as valid a page as
Michael Mandiberg,
Constant Dullaart or any other contemporary new media artist.
Michael Demers is cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.253.57.124 (
talk •
contribs)
Keep No criteria for nomination is mentioned. This person has been mentioned/published in numerous reliable sources, based on the article and a search.
198.58.161.137 (
talk)
20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The material on the wiki that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. If anything, LinkedIn is not citing properly. No issue here.
Apexspry (
talk)
22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment if the copyvio is real , i.e. the Linkedin page predates the wikipedia page, then you should take action to clean it up. User Dianaa is usualy happy to revdel things.
198.58.161.137 (
talk)
09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I stand by my Keep for
Michael Demers. I am not, nor am I related to or connected to, the subject as
User:Theredproject implies, so no violation of
WP:COI here. I have also not repeatedly removed flags unless I have made edits to the page to correct such flags. I am not quite the power user that
User:Theredproject is, but I don't think that should preclude me from being a part of this community. I will make edits to the page, even though my information is cited from printed material, and
User:Theredproject can hopefully move on.
Apexspry (
talk)
11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Folks, the original request of a Speedy Delete by
User:Theredproject was for
WP:COPYVIO. The page has since been edited to amend that complaint. Whether the page is a PROMO, or I'm a SPA, or I've got clones or am soliciting responses seem to be another issue -- and there are cogent arguments to be made against any of those assumptions (Assume Good Faith, right?). Can we resolve the issue of the
WP:COPYVIO before we move on to these other (alleged) infractions?
Apexspry (
talk)
18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Clarification. The article is at AfD and my !vote is based on the merits of that issue. The article's subject is at a junior college and does not show any acceptable (for our purposes) impact w.r.t. publishing, books, cited articles, etc. (NOTE: There is another person
having a similar name, who is well-cited.) You are a SPA in that your short edit record shows edits which only support the person of Michael Demers. There is a strong positive correlation with being a fan or vanity page, which in turn correlates strongly with not being notable. The article is basically promotional...another correlated bad sign. The sources aren't very good and the claim for notability is pretty flimsy, basically that this person is a professor and has taught. So, aside from whatever COPY problems there might have been, the problem now is demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing it.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Debate seemed a little suspicious, so I checked and tagged the SPA contributions. It seems that all the "keeps" so far are from SPA accts.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think so. Your account is 3 days old and you happened to jump into an esoteric area of internal WP debate at the same time as a whole bunch of other new-found accounts to "keep" this article? I guess you feel that because you've also made edits on a half-dozen other articles in those 3 days, you should be considered a seasoned, disinterested editor. Most seasoned, disinterested editors would not consider 3 days to be sufficient dues.
Agricola44 (
talk)
00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Me again, my IP reset. I counted 17 distinct pages that I worked on, including extensive edits to Gerald le Dain. Arrogant editors like yourself, who like to pick on IP accounts for no reason as you do here, are a significant problem in Wikipdia. I'm not an SPA, you tagged me as one...
198.58.168.40 (
talk)
00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Can we get back to the matter at hand? The page has been updated. Does this satisfy the initial issues as raised by
User:Theredproject? And can
User:Agricola44 tell me how many edits have to be recorded before he stops accusing those of us with a just a few edits as SPA?
Apexspry (
talk)
11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You can be flippant about it, if you wish. Your edits have only supported Michael Demers, either on the article itself, or on other articles to insert his name. It suggests COI and lessens the credibility of your !vote. Best,
Agricola44 (
talk)
12:44, 18 January 2018 (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.
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 delete. Even if not a copyvio, the few notability concerns have not been addressed (that other topics have a page does not mean this one can as well) and all keep !voters are SPAs and aren't addressing notability issues, either.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep Just as valid a page as
Michael Mandiberg,
Constant Dullaart or any other contemporary new media artist.
Michael Demers is cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.253.57.124 (
talk •
contribs)
Keep No criteria for nomination is mentioned. This person has been mentioned/published in numerous reliable sources, based on the article and a search.
198.58.161.137 (
talk)
20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The material on the wiki that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. If anything, LinkedIn is not citing properly. No issue here.
Apexspry (
talk)
22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment if the copyvio is real , i.e. the Linkedin page predates the wikipedia page, then you should take action to clean it up. User Dianaa is usualy happy to revdel things.
198.58.161.137 (
talk)
09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I stand by my Keep for
Michael Demers. I am not, nor am I related to or connected to, the subject as
User:Theredproject implies, so no violation of
WP:COI here. I have also not repeatedly removed flags unless I have made edits to the page to correct such flags. I am not quite the power user that
User:Theredproject is, but I don't think that should preclude me from being a part of this community. I will make edits to the page, even though my information is cited from printed material, and
User:Theredproject can hopefully move on.
Apexspry (
talk)
11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Folks, the original request of a Speedy Delete by
User:Theredproject was for
WP:COPYVIO. The page has since been edited to amend that complaint. Whether the page is a PROMO, or I'm a SPA, or I've got clones or am soliciting responses seem to be another issue -- and there are cogent arguments to be made against any of those assumptions (Assume Good Faith, right?). Can we resolve the issue of the
WP:COPYVIO before we move on to these other (alleged) infractions?
Apexspry (
talk)
18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Clarification. The article is at AfD and my !vote is based on the merits of that issue. The article's subject is at a junior college and does not show any acceptable (for our purposes) impact w.r.t. publishing, books, cited articles, etc. (NOTE: There is another person
having a similar name, who is well-cited.) You are a SPA in that your short edit record shows edits which only support the person of Michael Demers. There is a strong positive correlation with being a fan or vanity page, which in turn correlates strongly with not being notable. The article is basically promotional...another correlated bad sign. The sources aren't very good and the claim for notability is pretty flimsy, basically that this person is a professor and has taught. So, aside from whatever COPY problems there might have been, the problem now is demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing it.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Debate seemed a little suspicious, so I checked and tagged the SPA contributions. It seems that all the "keeps" so far are from SPA accts.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think so. Your account is 3 days old and you happened to jump into an esoteric area of internal WP debate at the same time as a whole bunch of other new-found accounts to "keep" this article? I guess you feel that because you've also made edits on a half-dozen other articles in those 3 days, you should be considered a seasoned, disinterested editor. Most seasoned, disinterested editors would not consider 3 days to be sufficient dues.
Agricola44 (
talk)
00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Me again, my IP reset. I counted 17 distinct pages that I worked on, including extensive edits to Gerald le Dain. Arrogant editors like yourself, who like to pick on IP accounts for no reason as you do here, are a significant problem in Wikipdia. I'm not an SPA, you tagged me as one...
198.58.168.40 (
talk)
00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Can we get back to the matter at hand? The page has been updated. Does this satisfy the initial issues as raised by
User:Theredproject? And can
User:Agricola44 tell me how many edits have to be recorded before he stops accusing those of us with a just a few edits as SPA?
Apexspry (
talk)
11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You can be flippant about it, if you wish. Your edits have only supported Michael Demers, either on the article itself, or on other articles to insert his name. It suggests COI and lessens the credibility of your !vote. Best,
Agricola44 (
talk)
12:44, 18 January 2018 (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.