Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McMillen


 * 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. Neither reason this page was created nor its length is relevant to this discussion. Sources have been provided in this discussion that no one has been able to satisfactorily agrue against their esttablisment of notability for the subject. J04n(talk page) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew McMillen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In short: highly questionable that it passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:GNG

Claim: This person has does not satisfy general notability as many of the sources here are not even covering him, or are from personal blogs. He doesn't have any of the achievements or accomplishments under WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR.

I'll go through each source now:


 * 1. It's not available now. Here is a screenshot: http://archive.today/2v308. As you can see it's his own portfolio that he contributed.


 * 2. This article doesn't cover him or his book beyond quotes, it's pretty much just an ad him and for his book.


 * 3. This is an interview about him. But I question the usage of this site as a source. It looks sketchy and unreliable. I'll concede that there are others that may be less stringent in this regard and consider this an acceptable source.


 * 4. This source isn't available right now and doesn't appear to be used. I think it's a page for an event, but there's not much to say without more context.


 * 5. This is a blog and questionable under WP:USERGENERATED.


 * 6. This is a page from the person himself about his book which shouldn't be eligible to establish notability.


 * 7. This source is supposed to be supporting that he wrote reviews in this magazine. I don't think this helps his case for notability as it doesn't help him with regards to any of the criteria.


 * 8. This is an article he wrote himself and doesn't appear to be picked up in another reliable source. WP:USERGENERATED


 * 9. This is an article he wrote himself and is picked up in 10b. By itself, it should not be a reliable source under WP:USERGENERATED.


 * 10a. The first one is a blog of a person, not a article of someone actually working for Kotaku. WP:USERGENERATED


 * 10b. This one talks about the article he wrote under source 9. This one passes muster for me.


 * 10c. This one just mentions that he was on a panel.


 * 11. This one talks about the stuff he wrote about, but does not mention him.


 * 12. Same as 11.


 * 13. This one talks about an article he wrote and seems ok.


 * 14. This is the article mentioned in 13.


 * 15. Mentions source 14 and some emails he wrote.


 * 16. Video can't be found. The context for this source is supposed to be about his appearance on a TV show which may or may not be valid for notability, but I can't tell without the source.


 * 17. A video of a panel the person hosted. This may or may not add to his notability, I'm not entirely sure as of whether it's a big deal to host a panel here.


 * 18. Just sections of his book on another author's site. While the other author appears to be notable, this piece doesn't say anything about the person or his work that would bolster notability.


 * 19. Similar to 17


 * 20. The problem I have with these sources is that they don't help his case with regards to his notability as an author and journalist.

Conclusion: At the very least, notability is questionable. I think that it's not established here. Most of these sources and the content they back appear to be about work that isn't widely regarded in that there doesn't seem to be widespread coverage. There aren't any sources that cover him and his work; sources that show he is notable in his field. For the controversy articles, they just use him to validate the claims. He doesn't seem to have any awards or large wins in his field. He does seem to a competent person in his field, but as far as I can tell, he's just another guy doing his job and we don't write articles on such people. Transcendence (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Transcendence. I noticed that this review  of Mcmillen's book (The Sydney Morning Herald) was not in the article when you nominated it. I always think that a review in a big city daily is a strong argument for notability, and just wanted ot point this out.  Best.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete this. The page was only written for a piece the author wrote about Wikipedia's lax standards for inclusion. He is not, by any stretch, a notable Australian journalist. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-i-snuck-through-wikipedia-s-notability-test-abfbd15127bc Keeping his page up will only further undermine Wikipedia's project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherehereiam (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems relevant. How I Snuck Through Wikipedia’s Notability Test -- TOW  19:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This page was not "only written for a piece the author wrote about Wikipedia's lax standards for inclusion". The page was written for the same reasons I've written other articles: while interacting with someone, I checked to see if they had news coverage, and then put the pieces together. The subject's description of the process is not the complete process. I do agree that the notability is on the fringe. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Written as a news archive, not an encyclopedia article.-- Sparkzilla talk! 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The fact that the subject feels he is not notable and "snuck through" does not mean that this is necessarily the case. Please make this deletion debate a fair and honest one rather than rushing to judgement as nothing good can come from a wrong decision in this potentially high profile case. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The majority of references are to his primary sources. He or his work are not described in independent biographies or encyclopedia entries. Wikipedia is not a home page for any author. 58.182.250.23 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just read the article McMillen wrote, and reviewed all the sources cited in his BLP.  The Music Business Facts piece is the closest thing to a profile showing notability, yet even that source and its quality falls far short.  Historically I am a big inclusionist on this project and probably wouldn't waste my time on this AfD if I perceived the potential BLP risks to the subject to be low, but it requires little subjective thought to conclude he's simply not notable.  Do many biography articles like this exist unchallenged?  Sure.  I have created biographies on many journalists, but I make sure there are at least two articles in top newspapers profiling the subject.  So Neetzan Zimmerman and Andrea Peyser qualified, but Andrew would not.  It is the same for old dead folks in journalism.  William Coleman (editor) and J. David Stern and Frederic Hudson qualify but some random two-time poet for The Century in 1887 would not.
 * But what fascinates me more is the reverence for Wikipedia implicit in McMillen's piece, and in more and more pieces about Wikipedia in the past few years. When I assisted E.J. Dickson at the Daily Dot on her hoax story last year, I noted with surprise how she felt genuinely bad about her actions.  And I've since been attuned to seeing how widespread these feelings are.   Even redditors, who can make fun of everything, revere wikipedia -- "Today I Learned" threads there regularly propel weird articles into the weekly WP:TOP25.  We have a generation of younger folks now, including journalists, who grew up with Wikipedia.  They are generally aware of the risks of using it uncritically, but they consider it an incredible resource built on a model that common sense says simply should not work.  Nerdy people always wrote history, we just have a different set of nerds now.  The institutionalization of Wikipedia is fascinating to behold.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Like Carrite, I advise caution. And like Milowent, I note the apparent respect for Wikipedia and its editors in McMillen's writing. He points out that things can slip through - yes, a quick look at the list of hoaxes will back that up. But, with a few exceptions like Amelia Bedelia, most of them are obscure and survived because gnomes and bots were the only visitors. This isn't a hoax. I regard it as a test page, to see how the system reacts. It probably should be deleted, and this may provide material for a new article (not on Wikipedia) on the fate of the venture. All well and good. It hasn't harmed us, or him. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment His book has received some significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (e.g. and ) raising the issue of whether he satisfies WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but shorten. Author of a book from a university press which has received some media coverage.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Sparkzilla. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be deleted or not, but what I am sure of is that McMillen's Backchannel piece, and this article itself, should be mentioned or included within pages about Wikipedia's history. This was an interesting look at what we do here, and should be kept somewhere&mdash;just not sure if this page is where that should be. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 18:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per and, although I disagree about shortening it. So long as we're now violating WP:BLP does it matter if we inconvenience a few more electrons for this article? // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 01:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was not created in good faith, but with the deliberate attempt to show case problems in Wikipedia. Articles created for this purpose should not be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The intentions behind the article's creation seem irrelevant in determining McMillen's notability, which is the crux of this AfD nomination. 99.239.86.213 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page was created in good faith. See Talk:Andrew_McMillen in the section "Of Note" Transcendence (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I will reiterate it here: the page was created in good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination; having read through all the sources, the subject does not appear to be notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with what other editors have said. Apparently the person that the article is about has created an article talking about how he fooled wikipedia's notability test. I really think it would be a good idea to check that out if you need any info on how he did it. Apparently some experienced editors helped him with it. Gamermadness (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but shorten drastically to, about 3 sentences: the book, the fact of his being a journalist, and a link to his article on Wikipedia.) User:Gamaliel makes a valid point. A book published with a University Press is not nothing.  Here is a serious review  in the Herald.   And then there is the entertaining, highly flattering (to us) article on Backchannel.    He squeaks past WP:GNG, by the skin of his glib tongue.  Frankly, deleting the page will merely make Wikipedia look vituperative and petty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. 130.88.52.212 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per E.M.Gregory. His book received significant coverage in his native country, including The Australian, ABC Brisbane , and the aforementioned review in The Herald []. I think that establishes notability, albeit by a whisker. If the coverage of his book is enough to establish notability, Transcendence concedes in the AfD nomination that several sources are fine as-is, and I see a couple (#1, #16) that could be good if the original sources were tracked down. The article definitely needs to be pruned, but deleting it outright (particularly in light of the additional sources that have turned up) feels perhaps a bit reactionary. 99.239.86.213 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete ironically I ended up here from his article about how he "Snuck through Wikipedia's notabilty system". But in wikirules, clearly fails WP:GNG. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with EoRdE6, this article seems like a collection of non-notable information and not really notable. &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely should be improved (and pruned) in various ways, but in my judgement it meets the standard for notability. I basically agree with E.M.Gregory, especially given the appreciable coverage his U of Queensland Press book received in major newspapers, as outlined by 99.239.86.213. I would note also that while the academic-press book is definitely the most significant, it is not the only example of independent reporting covering his work (as acknowledged in the original claim), at least some of it in respected, if niche, outlets like Game Informer. However, more strongly than I think that the scales of notability should tip one way or the other, I think we should be careful not to let our opinions about his Backchannel piece influence the decision. Personally, I thought it was very fair and actually reflected well on Wikipedia, but I can understand how someone would have the opposite reaction. However you felt about it, though, this article is definitely not a hoax or a PR piece (as Transcendence noted in one of their comments), so we should judge it on notability, not our feelings about the subject. LiberalArtist (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * His article on Wikipedia is very fine (though I laughed at all the graphics showing people with their article word counts, showing how the obsessive attention to his article made him stand out), but it is hard to write a BLP based on some book reviews. The way this discussion is going essentially shows that McMillen falls into the gray area in the community where notability can be debated.  If kept, I agree it has to be significantly pruned, and Andrew can compare himself in word count to Gaelic footballer BLPs.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails GNG, Shame it can't be salted tho. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Draftify. The "Snuck" article gives me unusual confidence that every possible source has been scraped.  The GNG standard - which I think should be our only standard for notability - is designed to make sure we don't give a completely unrepresentative view of an article subject by requiring we find multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that are about the subject, not just mention him.  (Therefore, the subject's writings don't count toward this, nor does content he puts into a directory, for example)  To vote to keep I'd need to see two sources advanced as meeting that standard; I don't think you have them but am open to convincing.  As I very rarely vote other than Keep, I should note that I see no harm, here or in similar situations, with merely moving the article to Draft:Andrew McMillen in the hope that suitable sources are found or published, rather than deleting it.  We save no space by literally deleting it, so why? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a WP:CREATIVE just need sources about his work, not person. For example WP:AUTHOR #3 is met with book reviews. There are two review-like sources from reliable sources. Not enough for me, but there you go (since you asked for two). -- Green  C  01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Puzzled by these comments. User:Wnt points to a published profile of McMillan recently added to the page from the Brisbane Times, a blue-linked, commercial, online newspaper that looks to have a staff of paid journalists, the article is aprofile of McMillan, not an article by him. To me, it adds to the argument made by User_talk:Green Cardamom (who added it to the page), that an author passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE when there are multiple, reliable sources about his work.
 * Salting (User:Davey2010), like deleting, not only ignores the guidelines worked out for notability - and  seems vindictive - it opens Wikipedia to mockery.  We need to pack away personal umbrage, because deleting this article would issue a gilt-edged invitation to McMillan to sell an article about how absurd the Wikipedia editing process is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely oppose "salting", which is not a normal part of a first AfD discussion and in any case is just really annoying overall. I also will admit I pretty much ignored the specialty novelty guideline because (a) I don't think we should have any, and (b) it's so weasel you can argue whatever you want from it.  I mean, Notability (people) starts by listing the GNG -- then it gives a bazillion exceptions for "significant" awards and "important" figures and so forth -- then at the end it says that if the basic criterion isn't met while additional criteria are, you shouldn't have a separate article anyway!  If anyone wants to put that turd of a guideline up for deletion you can count on my vote! Wnt (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * the argument to date (A Guide for the Daunted: my good faith effort to produce a short course) The argument in favor of keeping is based on this youngish writer passing WP:CREATIVE by dint of a single book published by University of Queensland Press (a house that publishes both scholarly and trade), and because of two articles about the book and its author, one in The Australian, the other in ABC Brisbane Brisbane Times, , and one review of the book in The Herald []. That the case should be based on merit (not on the actions of the subject) and tat deletion might reflect negatively on Wikipedia process.   The argument for deleting is that the page (inflated with sourcing to more or less every blog post in which McMillan has ever been mentioned) demonstrates paltry evidence of notability, despite the fact that editors have scoured the web diligently for additional sources. That McMillan's claim to fame boils down to a single book and the fact that he is a working journalist writing for minor, online media sites.  The fact that McMillan came to have a Wikiepdia page only because he was writing an article about Wikipedia. How I Snuck Through Wikipedia’s Notability Test.  And that allowing stunts like this to result in an enduring page reflects negatively on Wikpedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.