Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Fleischmann


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marc Fleischmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BASIC: no sources available about subject, one article in which the subject was interviewed about a product. Celestra (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am on the cover of the IEEE Spectrum magazine referenced. I was on a special breakout in the Microprocessor Report referenced (because the low power technology discussed in the article is from me). In fact, I was referenced many times in the press while at Transmeta, I was an invited speaker at a number of high profile computer conferences, and I even was on a brief CNN interview. Here are just a few more references on me or my work at Transmeta for your kind consideration. I'll gladly reference every single reference if that helps.

Mit Crusoe gegen Intel. Bayern 5 aktuell, Computermagazin (radio interview), Munich, October 7, 2001 Schöne, geteilte Welt - Hitech: Neue Chancen für alle. Hamburger Abendblatt, p. 22, Hamburg, March 24/25, 2001 Cover story: Crusoe treibt Server und neue All-day-Notebooks. VDI nachrichten, pp. 1 & 39, Düsseldorf, March 23, 2001 [online] Crusoe im Luxusbett. c't Magazine, 26/2000, pp. 84-85, Hannover, December 2000 Cover story: Crusoe's race towards 1W. Nikkei Electronics Magazine, pp. 131-165, Tokyo, March 13, 2000 [online] Crusoe at PC Expo. ASAhi, No. 271, pp. 14-15, Tokyo, August 1, 2000 The innovative Crusoe Microprocessor. ASAhi, No. 269, p. 15, Tokyo, July 1, 2000 Das Projekt Zukunft fordert den Einsatz rund um die Uhr. Computer Channel, San Francisco, August 1, 2000 Top Vendors Adopt Crusoe. Microprocessor Report, San Jose, July 10, 2000 [PDF] Transmeta steigt ins Server-Geschäft ein. Computer Channel, San Francisco, July 5, 2000 Transmeta nimmt Kurs auf den Server-Markt. Computer Channel, San Francisco, July 4, 2000 Transmeta chips to make air travel safer. The Register, London, July 2000 [online] Transmeta inside. Wired Magazine, 8(7):174-186, San Francisco, July 2000 [online] The incredible shrinking computer. On: NY1 (CNN) (TV interview), New York, June 30, 2000 [online] Die Herausforderer. Capital, 13/2000, pp. 71-76, Köln, June 16, 2000 Low power: The new battlegound. Electronic News, San Jose, June 2000 Cover story: Transmeta's magic show. IEEE Spectrum, 37(5):26-33, New York, May 2000 [online] Zu neuen Ufern. c't Magazine, Hannover, January 27, 2000 [online] [shlashdotted] Transmeta Introduces Pentium-like Crusoe Chip. Computer World, Framingham, January 24, 2000 Analysis: Crusoe is a CPU for the road. CNN, Atlanta, January 21, 2000 Transmeta goes Moble Linux. CNET, Hong Kong, January 21, 2000 Transmeta revs up own version of Linux. CNET, Atlanta, January 20, 2000 [online] Crusoe: A CPU for the Road. PC World, San Francisco, January 20, 2000 [list]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcfl (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did any of those articles feature Marc Fleischmann as the subject? The requirement is for significant coverage about the subject. That allows us to use those other sources' judgment and avoid subjective assessments. Celestra (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's Marc Fleischmann talking about his work and a bit of him as the subject. E.g., Marc Fleischmann is on the cover of the renowned IEEE Spectrum magazine, he was on stage with Linus Torvalds and the enginnering team at the Transmeta product launch, he's referenced in multiple international artciles, e.g., in c't 6/2000 along with Linus Torvalds, Dave Ditzel and Boris Babaian. It's a bit blurry where the work ends and the subject starts - they seem somewhat interrelated... ;) Marcfl (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a 'no'. Please try to step back and look at the criteria objectively. The article needs to refer to an independent source which has significant coverage of the subject. If there is none today, you can always come back after there is. Regards, Celestra (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In all above quoted articles/radio clips/TV clips Marc Fleischmann is personally mentioned and/or interviewed. I have many more articles where Marc Fleischmann's work is discussed or quoted without him personally being mentioned. That seemd more than a number of other people on Wikipedia can claim... Best, Marcfl (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete - as the article was written by User:Marcfl, who is presumably the subject himself, there is a massive conflict of interest and the article could never be objective. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly isn not objective about this article? Be precise. The artcle only quotes substantiated facts. And it contains references for them. This seems a boilerplate response without much thought. There are many articles in Wikipedia that reference _less_ articles (like only one) and are written worse in form, and they contain errors. This decision seems a bit random. Quite disappointing. Marcfl (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read the guidelines at WP:AUTOBIO where it says, inter alia: "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls."    Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is discouraged because it is difficult to be objective and neutral when dealing with an article about oneself. That is evidenced here by the lack of willingness to address the notability requirements directly. Objectively, there either is or isn't substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please either provide a source which has significant coverage of the subject of the article or accept that the article fails to meet that standard. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Published works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not considered reliable. Considering the target audience of sources culled from the publications provided, the references are presented by professional industry media of limited interest and circulation. The publications have established an affiliated, direct interest in the subject or the topic of which the subject is speaking and is therefore, not independent. Use of sources of this nature, does not establish or support notability. Accordingly, subject does not meet notability criteria presented in WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well argued and written. I can supply references outside of the trade press that cover me in person, but I think that would be vanity, and rather embarassing to have them included. I also understand the COI argument. I simply had seen a number of pages that seemed less relevant, and thought therefore perhaps this might be useful information for Wikipedia. Go ahead. Best, Marcfl (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a lot of discussion here pertaining to COI. I wouldn't worry about that though. A conflict of interest is not reflective of the WP deletion policy. WP is edited by volunteer staff and not all editors that participate have a complete understanding of the policies and guidelines pertaining to deletion. Most editors participate in good faith, just the same. While discouraged, it is quite possible to write a well-balanced, neutral article while maintaining a conflict of interest. The primary concern leading to deletion is one of notability. If you can provide additional information to establish notability that is in alignment with WP:BIO and supported with independent sources, the article would be appropriately kept. As far as embarrassment, save face at all costs! ; ) Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cindamuse. While it might be vanity to supply sources, it's no more so than creating an article about yourself and your company, as well as engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. The COI issue makes it especially difficult to sort this out, but without a depth of sources, it's difficult to gauge. tedder (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon. You are contradicting yourself. You want well researched and documented articles, but are allergic against the people who know the material best. Point in case: Eddie.willers suggested RisingTide for deletion, but has contributed Arteli, which contains not a single reference, or much substance at all, but that somehow seems acceptable. Are you serious?!? You seem to contradict your own standards. Besides, an autobio might perhaps be vanity (thank you for improving it (!), it's really helpful style guidance for the future) - and I already said I am happy to have it deleted (I honestly thought it might have been helpful). Now, are you arguing that an article about an open source company that many people have been contributing to (for free) and benefitting of (for free) also is... just vanity? Which then constitutes sufficient reason for deletion (vs. examples like Arteli)? Please educate me. Thank you. Best, Marcfl (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and are you accusing me of engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Marcfl (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2010 (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.