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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Sherman (LGBT rights advocate)

Michael Sherman (LGBT rights advocate) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP, actually an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, with no strong or well-sourced claim of encyclopedic notability. His notability as an activist largely boils down to writing a few letters to municipal leaders in his own local area, which falls far short of the level of prominence it takes to satisfy our notability rules for activists, and the sourceability mostly boils down to local coverage and primary sources. There's one source here that's genuinely solid in terms of its ability to count toward WP:GNG, but it's a blurb, not a substantive piece, which actually verifies none of the content about his activism — the only thing in the article that source is being cited to support is a statement of the fact that the source exists. And a person doesn't pass GNG on the basis of just one GNG-eligible source, either. There's quite a bit of completely unsourced detail here of the type that we can't publish at all without sourcing for it, and there's a definite advertorial public relations tilt to some of the writing. As always, we are not a public relations platform on which a person with a conflict of interest gets to maintain a minimally sourced WP:POV-toned autobiography to promote their business or charitable endeavours — it takes much better sourcing, and much more substantive evidence of their notability extending beyond a single local area, before a person passes our inclusion rules. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I did not put the LGBT Rights Advocate with my name that was done by someone else a bot I think. When I did created this page original before a bot got at it, I had it as Michael Sherman FTM. Since there was already a Michael Sherman and that individual of course is not me, I created one that was me Michael Sherman FTM. So who ever attached the LGBT Rights Advocate did it themselves. I am a Transgender Advocate for the Trans Community. I am also trans myself so in a way I am a Trans Advocate too as I advocate for change for the trans community and those who need help, just because I don't have mush in the way of media and shit like that you think my page or I should say article should be deleted. Who are you to say what I have done and not done. I have so many people who I can get to validate the work I do. Mikeshermanftm ( talk) 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Primarily advertorial with nowhere near the level of independent coverage in reliable sources required to satisfy the GNG.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

If you want to delete me fine, I will just re-create another one with better sources that can't be debated. You can't stop someone from trying to make a difference no matter how many sources someone provides. We all started out small and grow as time goes on. Give me a break folks Mikeshermanftm ( talk) 13:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC). reply

• Comment @ Mikeshermanftm: Unfortunately the Wikipedia is not about giving people a break, it deals in facts. It is commendable that you are trying to make a difference in the world, and when your have and several national newspapers have written in-depth articles about you and what you are fighting for, then there will be sufficient sources to back up an article about you here. To put it bluntly and in non-Wikipedia terms: You are not "famous" enough for an article here. Yet. Carry on your good work and you will get noticed and someone is bound to write about you then. Btw, the attached (LGBT rights advocate) that someone did, was just to separate you from a football coach with the same name. Best, w.carter -Talk 13:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Well I may not be famous...but at least I am honest too. I know I am a NOBODY, but you don't know the kinda response I got from people who have looked up to me over the past 8 years who have struggled with their gender Identity and to see someone who may not be on tv or in national newspapers / magazines making a difference so things are easier for them. I've tried to get interviewed on tv and news here in canada, but like you said I am not famous. Why do I need to be famous to me an advocate. Wikipedia is just like everyone i've encountered. If you're not rich, famous or a SOMEBODY - they don't give a **** well you know what I do and so do all the people who look up to me or reach out to me for help. I advocate for those people!!!!!! I don't do this to be famous I do this to MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our society where WE the TRANS COMMUNITY are still fighting for our acceptance. I could have just hid away and not done all the work that I've done even though it may not be in the papers. I forgo a life of living stealth to make a difference and I just thought Wikipedia would be one place to help show the LITTLE GUYs can help and be a voice! Mikeshermanftm ( talk) 14:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Mikeshermanftm: On Wikipedia we have to be able to check everything that is in the articles, that is why we have to rely on other reliable media and report/edit what they write. Wikipedia is very much for "the little guy", but "little guys" who get noticed. My advice is that you use all the free social media available to you (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, whatever) and make your case. Go berserk there, make waves, make a difference! Make a huge difference!! And when you have done that, you will get your article in this encyclopedia ( not platform). Many confuse the WP with social media, please don't, it is more like Encyclopædia Britannica when choosing what articles stays or not. And like you say, you don't need to be famous to be a advocate, well, you don't need to be in the Wikipedia to be a good advocate either. Best, w.carter -Talk 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael, nobody in this discussion, least of all me, is questioning the value or the validity of what you do. But Wikipedia is not a public relations database or a social media platform where a person becomes entitled to start an article about themselves just because they exist, or a humanitarian award where a person gets an article just because they've done something heroic or admirable — we're an encyclopedia, on which all articles have to be compliant with our rules about writing tone, our rules about the use of referencing, our rules about what is or isn't includable, our rules about not starting an article about yourself, and on and so forth. This is not about you as a person — our inclusion rules have nothing to do with moral or ethical judgements about the goodness or badness of what a person does, and everything to do with whether or not a certain specific minimum level of media coverage has been attained by which we can properly verify an article's content.

Again, nobody's questioning the validity or the value of what you do, and nobody's suggesting that you stop doing it. But having a Wikipedia article is not an effective way to increase your public visibility. It isn't going to help you attract new admirers or fans or followers, because people aren't going to find it unless they've already heard of you, and are thus already looking for it.

And, in fact, having a Wikipedia article can actually have negative consequences that you may not fully realize — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, there are a considerable number of anybodies out there who try to misuse us as a venue for attacking our article subjects. One extremely common tactic, when it comes to articles about transgender figures, is to flip their gender pronouns back to the "assigned at birth" gender — while we do have a rule against that, one of the consequences of our structure is that we don't actually have a mechanism to prevent a rule from being broken before it gets broken. The only control we have over ensuring that our rules are followed is for somebody else to notice an inappropriate edit, and revert or fix it, after it happens. Our model works very well on high-profile people whose articles generate enough traffic that inappropriate edits to their articles will get caught quickly — but below a certain level of public prominence, it falls flat on its face and an inappropriate edit can end up lingering in the article for weeks or even months because nobody's seeing it at all.

And that's really the key reason why our notability standards require a certain minimum level of preexisting fame before a person can have an article on here: it's not because anybody thinks that what you do is less valuable or important than what more famous people are doing, but because there's a level of preexisting prominence below which the potential traffic is not high enough to ensure that an attack edit will get seen or fixed as promptly as it needs to be. Below a certain level of preexisting fame, we cannot guarantee an adequate level of quality control to ensure that the article stays fair to the subject. We can't guarantee that nobody will ever edit your article to misgender you. We can't guarantee that some person who dislikes you will never try to insert your home address and phone number into the article in the hopes of getting total strangers to harass you. We can't even guarantee that nobody will ever try to overwrite the entire article with their own résumé or a recipe for raisin bread or a pornographic essay about Kaley Cuoco's breasts (and no, I didn't make any of those things up — those are all things that really have happened to Wikipedia articles.) Our only mechanism for preventing those kinds of things is the oversight of other editors — so below a certain level of potential traffic our mechanism just doesn't work anymore, and the only other thing we can do to protect you from that risk is to not have the article at all.

Again, having a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean we approve of a person's work, and not having a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean we disapprove of a person's work — inclusion or exclusion on here has nothing to do with anybody's opinions about you as a person. It has to do solely with whether there's enough reliable source coverage, and enough potential visitors to the article, that we can guarantee a satisfactory level of maintenance. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as appears to fail WP:GNG. I second Bearcat's points on this, in that having a Wikipedia article on oneself is not an expression of approval. Mikeshermanftm, what you are doing is admirable and I apologise if you are finding this discussion unpleasant. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet they notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 25 January 2016 (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.