Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michigan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ansh 666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

David Michigan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography written from promotional sources, previously deleted last year for promotionalism. Different from last incarnation, so as not to qualify for G4 speedy, but the contents remain mostly PR puff pieces when those refs aren't dead, unreliable, or mere mentions. See discussions re: COI on my talk page and subsequently at the noticeboard. czar 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite - the guy is known and the article well referenced. The language is NPOV and modest in scope. Some minor tinkering will get it up-to-snuff. Jimmysonoma (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The references are either promotional puff pieces, dead links, unreliable, or mere mentions, as I have already said. The contents matter, not just that the topic was refbombed. It's impossible to build an article that does justice to the topic with the extant sources. czar  04:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This user also appears to have an undisclosed connection with the subject, having uploaded a photo of the subject credited as a self-portrait with the explanation that image permission can be provided upon request. czar  15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What "undisclosed connection"? As you dragged 'em out, and in Jimmysonoma's very own words, they are "good friends and distant relatives." And the subject of the contested article offered money to the editors who previously tried creating "his" page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are two different accounts:  Jimmysonoma and Gernmaniul. The latter disclosed on the linked talk page and the former hasn't.  czar  20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. There is a "yet" missing somewhere but never mind. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this text of unadulterated promotion about a subject distinctly failing WP:NBIO, WP:NMODEL (do not even try), WP:ACADEMIC (I'm going by stated assertions here), and WP:NATHLETE. Will the check clear? -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To closer: Please SALT at both this title and David Michigan (fitness trainer) czar  03:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the article because he passes GNG criteria. There are enough ghits to verify notability. I put several independent magazine and National TV shows links on the article's talk page which definitely makes him notable. Gernmaniul (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment note that Gernmaniul has (per User_talk:Gernmaniul) disclosed they have a personal connection to the article subject. Also, google search results are not an indication of notability, and articles written by Michigan (or shows featuring Michigan) are not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete subject fails WP:NMODEL, WP:ENT, and WP:SIGCOV. The SIGCOV argument is pertinent to WP:GNG arguments, as it is the depth, quality, and independence of the source that matters, not the number of sources cited. Corroborating what Czar said above, the sources cited by the article are all trivial, dead-links, or not independent of the subject; this is in addition to the subject failing the more stringent WP:NMODEL and WP:ENT criteria for inclusion, which also mandates that the coverage surround a subject be in-depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Not notable. Self-promotion piece written by an editor with a close connection with the subject. Newslinger (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - well referenced with third party independent refs. Passes WP:GNG per Google hits as well as WP:RAPID.BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. WP:RAPID is for breaking news stories, google search results or hits are not an indicator of notability, and the article's sourcing is either 1) trivial mentions or 2) based upon information taken directly from the subject's videos or featuring the subject himself, and thus not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's not enough media coverage - fails WP:GNG. The argued social media following and viral nature of his videos only translate to solid notability when also covered by reliable mainstream sources, or through some accepted and notable metric related to influence. I don't see that here. I'm on the fence with the salt - the deletion log for both versions of names should probably be enough. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:22, 17 July 2018 (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.