Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Arrigo


 * 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. No substantial, non-trivial, independant and reliable media coverage, no notability, but a heck of a lot of WP:ILIKEIT.  Daniel  08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Frank Arrigo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not sure that being Australia's 55th most popular blogger meets WP:BIO Mattinbgn/talk 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn/talk 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin before deciding on the merits of any comments please be aware of this notice, which requests Keep "votes", providing both instructions on how to edit and what to say. Gnangarra 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further this notice is also ask for keep "votes" and it provides a direct link here. Gnangarra 13:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one - this article talking about "rallying the troops", and assuming rather bad faith on our part suggesting "noisy locals shouldn't shape Wikipedia". WP:CANVASS is a clear issue on this AfD, sadly. Orderinchaos 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know Frank, but that’s not the reason why I am commenting. I love the fact that when one of the best known IT personalities from Australia gets a Wikipedia page, that its people from the US who want it removed. Frank's main blog is the quintessential source of Microsoft information in Australia, if any Australian Blogger or IT Worker deserves inclusion. Perhaps he can stay if he posts more about Star Trek. If you delete this, please delete all of the stuff relating that Australians find boring. My name is Kieran Jacobsen, kjacobsen.net if you want to look me up and use that as an excuse not to listen to my view point. Kjacobsen 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Franks history with MS, his consistant blogging and worldwide reputation make him worthy of inclusion. He might only rank 55 in Aus but he's get a worldwide and IMO more value to the community than articles on Klingon (which he probably speaks!) 71.231.3.74 20:44, 27 May 2007
 * Delete. I don't know either, but 55th doesn't seem high enough for me. Maybe if he was in the top 50... Sorry Frank, so close... Herostratus 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mention on a list of blogs doesn't constitute notability. HeirloomGardener 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything on this person. Could be vanity. Doc13mets 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I found Frank on the front page of the AFR last week. I saw him keynote several high profile events in the Tech industry over the past few years. To me, it seems he is quite notable. Not to mention that he's been an advisor to both Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.Delicategenius 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — User:Delicategenius (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've also just added a few more references indicating his notability.Delicategenius 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delicate Genius, you can only have one statement of your position so you should strike out the second keep.
 * has posted a few times on msdn.com John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates some notability although more for his work for Microsoft t. . Capitalistroadster 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I just read an article in AFR this week where he discusses the role of hiring for Microsoft. Interesting internal perspective.Davidlem
 * is probably David Lemphers, a "Developer Evangelist" @ Microsoft. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are these articles in AFR about the subject or about Microsoft? Being mentioned in an article, even a national daily like the Australian Financial Review does not necessarily meet the non-trivial criteria required for a source asserting notability. -- Mattinbgn/talk 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen Frank at non-IT conferences talking non-Microsoft topics; Podcasts, TV and other media. Australian IT/media industry knows Frank, equally for his time at ninemsn nickhodge
 * is a Microsoft "Developer Evangelist" @ Sydney. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I came from a complete non Microsoft background and even I knew of Frank through mainstream meadia. In fact his Meego itself is considered his own unique brand. scbarnes
 * is Scott Barnes, "Developer Evangelist" @ Microsoft. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete due to WP:COI and shilling. Weak delete ; mentions in news relating to Microsoft are not sufficient for a bio. news not relating to Microsoft is about other people named Frank Arrigo.  I havent yet see any personal achievements of note. John Vandenberg 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This information benefits no one. It's total promotion of a person. Vanity in the extreme. Some techie in Australia--yea, we're all real interested. "I've seen him at conferences"; that's a great standard for wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears in news but not in his own right, as far as I can see. Orderinchaos 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Most of the keeps are part of his Microsoft team if you look at his blog! Def Vanity in the extreme.  He is a avid blogger but thats about it -huyral96
 * Delete, 55th? Not good enough, son.  Bonus delete points for attempting to flood this discussion with keep votes from your mates/employees.  Lankiveil 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Vanity entry. People who are involved in information technology, or are bloggers, can seem to satisfy notability criteria if search hits are taken as a measure of notability. Recurring dreams 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Way, way too much shilling, way too many spas, plus strong WP:COI problems. Not much else to say. Krakatoa  Katie  08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Frank is Australia's Scoble. We may have a small population but we deserve our own expert du jour. Delete Frank, Delete Scoble's page. Unless wikipedia is US centric? Laurel Papworth 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The post at this location by the above voter is interesting. Please note too that most of the Delete voters are Australian in origin so it's not a WP:CSB issue. Orderinchaos 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Keep 211.28.231.145
 * Keep Frank is a public IT personality that has made a big impact over the last sixteen years during his time at Microsoft.edhooper
 * maintains a blog entitled "The Blog of Ed Hooper and the information hub for Microsoft at the University of Melbourne". Orderinchaos 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is significant that people have rallied here to defend the entry. Don't be deterred by other wikipedians who think that highlighting a connection to Frank negates the importance of your feedback. Delicategenius 12:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The law has to be enforced. Obviously the existence of this article is a big issue for Wikipedia. Thanks to the editors from Wikipedia police that prevent us from getting this information accidentally. Now I know how to get famous: Have an article on Wikipedia about you and initiate a deletion. -SESchreiber 16:35, 27 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Keep I agree with the comment that Wikipedia should not be US centric, and the Scoble of Oz should be kept. Newtronic 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This reminds me of the disccusion for deletion of the Meathead (Nine Inch Nails fan personality) article (which apparently has been deleted because i can't find it). Just because someone is not notable to EVERYONE or even a majority of everyone, does not mean the person is not notable. In the technology field, Frank is well-known. It would be useful to me (and therefore I have to assume useful to others as well) to have a place to come and look at some more biographical information on this person. Isn't that the whole purpose of wikipedia? A central repository for information that is useful? I wish wikipedia had MORE entries like this, not fewer. Tlmii 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I forgot to say that I think that this sort of heavy-handed technique by the "powers that be" is one of the (many) reasons so many people are frustrated or distrustful of Wikipedia and its content.Tlmii 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary (and with no disrespect whatsoever to your views), I personally believe that our rules regarding notability, verifiability etc are the only way we can gain the respect of the wider community. Otherwise, the public comes away with an impression that we are a glorified Myspace, directory of useful links or a soapbox/blog site. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia. Note that notability is not in the eye of the beholder, it relates to independent coverage and sourcing. Orderinchaos 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that point of view, however, from my perspective, "trying to build an encyclopedia" and "including lesser-known personalities that would still be useful to your users" do not need to be mutually exclusive paths for Wikipedia to take. I will note that I do think the article is lacking both in substance and organization, however I think that should make this a candiate for fixing, not deletion (I apologize, I do not yet know the correct wiki terminology). Reflecting on your comment about "a glorified Myspace," it makes me wonder about the goals of Wikipedia. Are the goals to be popular? Or to be useful? Or both? It seems that your statement implies Wikipedia should exclude useful information in order to maintain a particular position in people's minds. That doesn't sound quite what I would expect.Tlmii 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Having numerous blogs does not make one notable.  Also, Wikipedia is not going to list everyone who's ever contributed to an IT conference! -- MightyWarrior 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails to meet WP:N and WP:V (a "known geek personality in Australia" - known by whom? how does one define geek?). There are very few blogs which would qualify under the "independent secondary sources of which one is a subject" criterion in Australia, most of those who do (John Quiggin, Tim Blair etc) qualify for other reasons. The amount of canvassing going on to save this stubbish article is of concern to me. Zivko85 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the references are all about blogging. The article needs two non-trivial sources about Arrigo.Garrie 02:23, 28 May 2007 (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.