Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Vore


 * 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. Ultimately the independent coverage isn't there. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

John Michael Vore

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiographical article created by its own subject (see his own admission on his own user talk page that he had decided to start an article about himself), without actually demonstrating or sourcing any strong claim to notability under Wikipedia's inclusion rules. This is filled with a lot of life trivia that doesn't speak to notability at all, and very heavily reference bombed to a lot of sources that aren't helping to establish passage of WP:GNG (pieces of his own bylined writing, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, student media, glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, etc.), and after considering those problems, it's just not at all clear that there's a genuinely strong notability claim, or enough solid notability-building sourcing, left. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where people are entitled to place themselves for a publicity boost -- even if he is genuinely notable enough for an article, he still has to wait for somebody else to write and source an article properly, and independently of his own self-promotional efforts, and is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a platform for his own autobiography. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - blatant self promotion with no clear indication of notability because of the way it is written. WP:TNT. If the creator wants to write a neutral article about himself that clearly demonstrates his notability, then he would need to do so using the WP:AFC process. (Personally, I probably would have just moved the article to draft space rather than bringing it to AfD). Melcous (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw or didn't understand the numerous references within Wikipedia, above, until this moment. Thanks again to everyone on suggestions.


 * re:Author, Autobiographical--AUTHOR-AUTOBIOGRPAHY ADDRESSED: I have stopped participating in writing other than in minor edits (punctuation, missing reference so far). I better understand the issues here and again apologize for the mistake
 * re: Notability --NOTABILITY ADDRESSED VIA CITATION/EVENT COUNTS? I believe in the instances left after others' edits, Notability requirements have been met: see >1 article? I'm unclear about "making a claim"? I thought the articles did that? I recognize this isn't an easy case. I again apologize for the difficulties and thank those helping to make corrections
 * re: reference bombed--REF BOMB: ADDRESSED - I believe this has been handled by others? My thinking about multiple references for the same event: a) establish the veracity of the event b) establish the reach of the impact (e.g., citywide, statewide, region wide, nationwide). I'm not sure what others have been doing in their pruning, but this was my original thinking. In one instance, for example, an AP story went out on the wire. Only one gave a byline to the author, Doug Richardson and nearly all shortened and rewrote what they received via AP. Only one establishes that "AIDS" was new for the Governor. That AP story was printed in national publications all through the US. And ofc the ABC coverage.
 * re: WP:GNG the tone of the article did not help the case, here. I believe that has been corrected. As to substance, I believe that: i) EVENT ii) references number > 1 article (meeting all requirements). An issue is made about articles written by subject: these have been reduced immensely by others' editing. No event is established merely by reference to an article or blog written by the subject.
 * re: self-published STILL OPEN? Yes, there are important caveats, but then we have: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have to think more about this.
 * re: WP:AFC- HAPPY TO MOVE IT TO DRAFT -- the suggestion that it be moved into draft space is great. I followed those steps at AFC, but never saw how to move it or build it in draft space. I will look at how to do this. Especially happy to do so if it helps cool tones. Yet a great deal of good editing has prevented the necessity complete blow up?

Thanks again for all questions and Wikipedia citations. I apologize for not seeing the above errors and especially my tone. No need to go personal, so apologies to all participating in this. Was not aiming for self-promo, but fall into that at times. Was not aiming to claim Notability where it doesn't exist. I had read the Autobio guidelines in a more open way than I read them today. I thought the second sentence underscored these are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. But I also didn't intend on bumping up against so many.

Informatics411 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Please disregard most of what follows. I hadn't yet seen enough of the guidelines yet. I'd prefer to remove it so...but don't want to remove context for Bearcat's explanations''' Informatics411 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality, Notability
Thanks for this discussion. I am still learning all the guidelines and appreciate others' attention to them and this chance to address these important concerns. This will be a start in addressing those concerns.

I have edited the Informatics411 Talk to better adhere to policy of COI editing; this doesn't remove it, but maintaining anonymity going forward is, I see, important and necessary. I understand better how this raises flags and creates difficulties for editors in general. I apologize for the difficulties re: COI, neutrality, autobiography. COI is possible, neutrality need be carefully policed (thanks and sorry for the extra effort), and autobiography needs to be avoided.

We are still early in the process, e.g., first 24 hours. I appreciate continuing the discussion so as to better learn about the standards. Individual events, alone, demonstrate that Vore article meets GNG requirements--if it isn't, one can easily see the autobio problem arising.

Over 60 sources attest to a) significance of events Vore participated in b) those sources are independent of him 90% of the time c) those sources are verifiable. No original research shows up in this article. The neutral point of view will be tricky. This writing process is collaborative and crowdsourced. This author will work to avoid impartiality and he apologizes for the need for unusual review.

Will address other issues shortly.

Informatics411 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing the admission that it's an autobiography doesn't mitigate the issue. The rule is not that the article can be an autobiography so long as you hide the fact instead of being open about it; it's that the article can't be an autobiography regardless of whether you're open about it or try to hide. Also, your sources can't be written by you, they can't be the self-published websites of organizations you're directly affiliated with, and they can't just briefly mention your name in passing — for a source to help support your notability, you have to be its subject. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Now seeing above bullet. I agree that removing information in Informatics411Talk does not remove the concerns and I apologize for the needed unusual review; that is, regardless, where we are and will be. I agree with your statement of rules but don't agree with your seeing a violation in the instances mentioned. --John Michael Vore as a source, himself, is autobiographical in only the instance of a masters thesis (which is, by its nature, significant and attested to)...? As discussed at length in Reference Referent, the rule you apply simply cannot hold in the instances mentioned: a) when an article subject is a speechwriter, the speech given by the speechmaker is an event including the speechwriter b) Similarly, as behind-the-scenes actor in policymaking, behind the publicly-announced, pursued policy c) Similarly, as behind the scenes organizer of events, themselves, reporting about those events equates to reporting about the event-maker.--In the three instances above, there are no references by John Michael Vore about any of them. In the high school setting, the actual high school paper's coverage about the Reagan inaugural is not about Vore, but is, in fact evidence of what is claimed about Vore.--It is not obvious and applies in all instances but those in which is article subject is a behind-the-scenes actor in a public event. No blog entry establishes anything autobiographical. But see "Reference referent" above? Informatics411 (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The significance of a masters' thesis, insofar as it constitutes a reason for an encyclopedia article, is not established by the existence of said thesis; it is established by the existence of external analysis of its significance by other people in third party sources. The significance of speechwriting, insofar as it constitutes a reason for an encyclopedia article, is not established by citing the speeches to themselves; it is established by the existence of external analysis of their significance by other people in third party sources. Reporting about events does not establish the notability of the organizer if said organizer is not himself the subject of the coverage. And on and so forth: notability is never, ever, ever just a question of what the article says, or by citing the claims to primary sources that metaverify themselves (like speeches sourced to themselves) — it is always a question of the volume and depth and geographic range and quality of the media coverage that can be used to support the things it says, and can only be established by sources where John Michael Vore is the subject being written about by third parties in media. Notability cannot be established by sources you wrote yourself; it cannot be established by the self-published websites of organizations that aren't media; it cannot be established by sources that briefly mention you without being about you; it cannot be established by sources that tangentially verify facts while not actually naming you at all in conjunction with them. You would do well to (a) listen to what's being said, and (b) stop referring to yourself in the third person here. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone has been deleting a) References and b) Categories from the page in question. In the first instance, yesterday, it made it appear that Bearcat's argument had merit in a specific instance where it did not; today, we see Categories drastically reduced, removing the article subject from Categories which are obvious from content of article; can someone explain?

Re: Bearcat, above: Informatics411 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To suggest author isn't "listening" is to actually demonstrate that, so far, the one person objecting, is not, themselves listening--as if this one person, Bearcat, is the law, when from all I read on Wikipedia, that is not how it works; Informatics411 has made several changes in response to Bearcat which show that, irrefutably, this author is "listening"; is Bearcat?
 * So far, in this "debate," Bearcat has yet to accept one line of rebuttal; nor has Bearcat accepted even 1 Reference (there are 60+) as used in the subject article;
 * Please stop breaking the anonymity of the author, after an error in its regard has been established and corrected, per your critique (which would, then, show author is "listening"). Author has responded to your critique and taken action directly related to it--which you, nevertheless, also critiqued (and continue to do so), questioning the reputation of the author (by suggesting author has gone in "hiding" which is a bit dramatic and ridiculous in relation to a subject whose whole metier has been about being in the public sphere);
 * The author of the article in question has repeatedly accepted the standards found on Wikipedia pages, striven to meet them as written--and also repeatedly thanked others for their critiques. One writes the word "others" to give Bearcat the benefit of the doubt--that in fact there are others who object;
 * Please start referring specifically to Wikipedia policies themselves in your objections; are they not online and available? Though "good faith" paraphrasing is acceptable, unanchored it leads to fighting about the paraphrasing, not the article in question;
 * More than 60 References relate to the subject of the article in question, per Wikipedia policy, and in multiple instances meet Notability requirements. The first six sections, each taken separately, meet Notability alone without any need for interpretation or gray areas as suggested above by Informatics411 in "Reference referent." If you disagree let us work through each example section by section, reference by reference. 95% of all references were found via Newspaper.com searching for the subject's name (and combinations of) in the geographic areas where subject lived;
 * Bearcat's paraphrasing about what constitutes a secondary source goes beyond what Wikipedia requires as a secondary source, per the "No original research" page, section 1.2.2.
 * While Informatics411 appreciates the need, in a debate, to continue to amass "evidence," whereas Informatics411 has repeatedly referred both to Wikipedia policy and responses to Bearcat critiques, Bearcat never responds in kind. Please start responding, Bearcat;
 * Wikipedia citations in this section of responses to Bearcat critiques: Behavior section, Guide to deletion, section 4.2.2 specifically addresses concerns in this response; early responses by Informatics411 have specifically related to WP:GNG. The current References in the article attest to: Significant coverage (>1 source, in multiple instances), Reliable sources (Newspaper staffs, newspaper reporters), secondary sources (section 1.2 at "No original research" states: "...one step removed..." as is the case in 95%), independent of subject (95% true), with Presumption that significant coverage, itself, suggests merit in subject having article; Bearcat never makes a Presumption which in any way accepts even one sentence of article, which is a bit extreme;
 * I have now made several changes to the article in question per this discussion as well as responding specifically to critiques. Please acknowledge this so as not to make this debate one-sided.

Where do nom and Mellow show up?
 * Delete As per nom and Melcous, this is simply a bunch of self-promoting filler for a person with no indication of notability. This editor clearly has some problems with WP:NPOV — edits of his were reverted last year on the Jean-Paul Marat article for inserting his own opinion on the subject — and him writing an article about himself is simply a reflection of his obvious narcissistic belief that his opinions and his image matter more then anyone else's. He blatantly lies about "following policy" (conveniently ignoring the different policies that Bearcat mentioned in his initial deletion nomination) and also paints it as though Bearcat is the only editor on Wikipedia that would object to his article, that if he showed any other competent editor this dumpster fire of an article, that they wouldn't immediately vote delete. In conclusion, Informatics411 is simply a self-centered editor who disregards any argument against him and repeatedly lies in an attempt to defame editors who criticize his work. Blow the article up. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you might want to ease up on the personal attacks, as they are completely inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding our COI rule: as I already explained above, the rule is not that COI is okay so long as you don't admit that it's a COI. Withdrawing your prior admission that you were writing about yourself, and then referring to yourself in the third person thereafter, does not mitigate the COI — the COI is still there, and still not acceptable, regardless of how you conduct yourself, because the rule is not that COI only exists if you're open about it, while somehow ceasing to exist if you hide it. Regarding categories, the only categories that were removed were ones that are not consistent with how Wikipedia categorizes articles: we categorize articles by what the topic literally is, not by every individual "keyword" we can find in the body text. For instance, every individual person from Indiana does not go directly into ; is for things that literally are social networks, such as Facebook or Instagram, and not for every individual person whose article simply includes content somehow related to their personal presence on a social network;  is for things that literally are inauguration ceremonies, not for every individual person whose article simply includes content about a presidential inauguration. Categories are a system of classification, not of keywording, and we classify topics by what they literally are, not by keywording them into the category for every individual word that happens to be present in the body text. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE -Others have rescued the article in question--and I appreciate the effort. There were problems from the start, which I acknowledged. The remarks, re: Bearcat, other editors, were a fairly blatant call for their participation--and was not a personal attack. This from Lettler certainly constitutes personal attacks? As I said above, if we're not going to anchor a criticism to something specific, what can anyone respond to? Regardless the article has improved without my participation.

Lettler: Wow. Anyone can see I'm a relative newbie here. I've asked for help repeatedly and done my best to make a defense, as seemed to be the requirements, when asked for. And I've asked for pointers about the requirements, repeatedly. Informatics411 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Adding a new note here to direct your attention back to the top of the page under the original bundle of concerns. I had not realized the Wikipedia guideline pages were embedded as the basis for the critique. I believe these have now been addressed.

As for Lettler above, other than the personal attack, he mentions the Marat discussion. And he says I was trying to put forth my interpretation as further evidence that the current page I had been working on is worthless.

No matter how my input re: Marat is characterized it doesn't change the fact that what I was saying came from my reading Paris in the Terror: June 1793-July 1794" by Stanley Loomis. While any of us might disagree with what an authority might write, his view was the standard view until I believe about 1990. Whereas Loomis & company saw Marat from what he did during the terror, others have seen in him a precursor to Marxist ideas and embraced him. I'm surprised that I could find no way to express the Loomis view, now in the minority. I'd be happy to hear the solution to this, perhaps at my talk page? A Marat section exists.


 * Delete No indication of being notable.   scope_creep Talk  17:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion is now longer than the article in question.... I've done what I could to make it more readable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2021 (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.