Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D Norton


 * 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. There is a clear consensus that the sourcing isn't up to snuff and the tendency creeping in by a participant here to fling mud around suggest the light to noise ratio will not improve so lets just leave this here. Spartaz Humbug! 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael D Norton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Individual does not meet notability guidelines and sources provided are not sufficient/reliable to establish said notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, improperly sourced and doesn't meet notability. Also seems to be biased/non-encyclopaedic. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Built almost entirely from primary sources written, spoken or published by the subject himself (WP:SELFPUB). Reads like a self-written WP:PROMOTION. Article doesn't demonstrate the subject would pass WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG, even if cleaned up. Platonk (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC). Update - Still undecided as to degree of notability, however I am withdrawing my 'delete' vote because I have no time today to further evaluate the article/subject and the article has been massively improved since I placed my original vote. Consider me 'neutral' at this point. Platonk (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Update#2 - I am placing my final vote at the bottom of this discussion. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - to the creator : Today's new version of the article is much better and far more interesting to read. Suggestion, focus even more on Norton's businesses, products or services, and less on some of his personal struggles (ringworm?). See WP:WEIGHT for guidance there. I know it's an article under the person's name, but it will be the businesses and accomplishments that will help pass the notability bar. Reference section is much better. You may yet change my !vote. Platonk (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you SO much for the constructive criticism, Platonk, and not just throwing it away. ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like the creator of the article rewrote it so I say keep it because the biography of the person has some media attention. HelpingWorld (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote, HelpingWorld!

ArcticFox55 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have the following comments regarding the statements:

ArcticFox55 (talk) 3:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Note to creator, : Youtube, Facebook, anything written by Norton are equally unacceptable as reliable sources. If you stripped out everything like that, it might be possible to better to evaluate whether or not the subject is notable. At this point, after clicking on a dozen citations and finding nothing written by someone else about Norton, I'm unwilling to dig further. Platonk (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Performing an edit accordingly.
 * ArcticFox55 (talk) 4:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: All primary sources have been removed, and the article has been shortened to cover only that which was covered by a secondary source.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 5:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, I've been taking a close look at the sources remaining on the article, to try and judge whether ArcticFox55 might have a point. Although there are a decent amount of sources provided, I think the problem is that none of them are in themselves particularly noteworthy or reliable. It sort of reminds me of the original Threatin page, which was packed with interviews, profiles and grandiose claims about this supposed mega-band, but none were really substantial and had in fact largely been planted by the subject's promo team. Not to say that's what's going on here, it just illustrates that any random news outlet isn't necessarily a credible source.


 * The sources given don't seem to be engaging in robust journalism, more promotion, or puff pieces. I'm not suggesting they're acting out of ulterior motives, but the articles report, at face value, a number of outlandish claims made by Norton as gospel. Perhaps everything he says in the profile is true, but the point is, there don't seem to be any checks on the veracity of what he's saying. The profiles in LondonlovesBusiness, Tech Company News and Vents magazine just don't cut it for me as reliable sources. While they might work to flesh out an existing article, they aren't enough on their own. If Norton is as notable as he seems to think, it will only be a matter of time before major, indisputably reliable sources give him some coverage, and then you'll have better grounds for proving notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to JonnyDKeen for the constructive criticism provided in a just manner. I've completely rewritten the article from scratch with your feedback in mind. Now, it's an entirely different article.
 * ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, along with the constructive criticism JonnyDKeen gave me on his page (besides here on this page's discussion), along with his words here: I agree. I understand his point of view. The only thing I can make a reference to, in contrast, is that no news source is "indisputable," no matter how popular or famous it is. While I agree that higher-level sources for Norton are inevitable, and I really appreciate JonnyDKeen's lack of dismissiveness, the rules state clearly that fame is not the determining factor for the validity of a subject's noteworthiness. This makes the nature of the current sources he doubts also subjective.


 * Maybe Norton is telling the truth on everything. Maybe he's not. That's not for us to determine, which is why secondary sources are critical for the article. Whether anyone respects the source is up to them, largely subjectively, unless there is solid evidence to justify why. A positive bias isn't good, but a negative one isn't either.
 * ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was hoping he'd turn up in a few Gnews sources, nothing found. I get many hits on other "Michael D." people, nothing about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Four things to this (expand to read):

ArcticFox55 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We're trying to find reliable sources for him, Google News is a quick way of checking coverage in the larger news sources; not so much that doesn't show up there, simply that he doesn't have media coverage. We're looking for mentions in reliable, larger sources, not anything and everything that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Totally understandable, however... (expand to read):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: If you'd like to find news results quicker for Norton, it's better to type "Mike Norton" in the search engines, rather than "Michael D." I've listed it as an alternative name. ArcticFox55 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is totally against the Manual of style guideline for biographies. Here is what it says "'It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Example:
 * Use: William Henry Gates III
 * Avoid: William Henry "Bill" Gates III'"
 * However Common name says we should use the name the person is most often called by. If that is Mike Norton, than this article should be called that. Of course we already have Mike Norton as an article, so this would have to be given a disambiguation. Also if D. stands for something I believe we should write it out when we do give the full name (see Rutherford B. Hayes, who the article opens by calling Rutherford Birchard Hayes, as just one of many examples).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment That's a nice try, but... (expand to read):

93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Lambert edited what he said above, making my extended comment mismatch.93.114.202.147 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ignore the cruft - any other thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Note to closing admin:Happy holidays/Merry Xmas. The only other thing I have to add is that the subject's company made some new recent announcements. As new news articles circulate, there'll be even more references likely this week (I'll ask Norton to find out), which will boost the Wikipedia article even more. The guy's new, but that doesn't mean he's lied about anything. His audience is growing. And until there is actual evidence to verify that anything is untrue, it just doesn't make sense to assume that he is guilty before proven innocent. We should be better than that.

EDIT: Our personal views shouldn't be what determines who is noteworthy and who is not. We should just observe the evidence, and fairly, regardless of our personal feelings about him or what he's about. There is empirical, trackable evidence for the impact he's making. And the fact that you can't find counter-sources for the guy could mean that there is no basis for them to exist BECAUSE the story of the article is true. As much as he is dislikable or doubtable, there are pictures, sources/references, and search data on both Wikipedia itself and the articles that mention him. AND the money he's raised is verifiable through Upwork.com, which is a third-party. Therefore, there is way more evidence that would suggest that the subject is real, the story is real, and he's currently impacting an increasing number of lives. Doubt him, hate him or love him.93.114.202.147 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Wait a minute. I just found something in the guidelines that says how if there's no clear consensus...the article should be kept by default and that it is against the rules to continually nominate it for deletion.

This is the THIRD CONSECUTIVE TIME it's been relisted for deletion with no solid consesus. According to the guidelines...it should be kept.93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Nevermind. It seems like you're (Specifically MissVain) ignoring your own rules. [link to an attack page redacted[

I don't know what this will lead to in the long-term considering that post and the comments. Good luck with your "consensus," and "thorough discussions" but personally know that I will still continue to edit articles besides this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify or delete - There is evidence that the subject may be notable (per Wikipedia guidelines of what is 'notable') but despite cleaning up the article and several other editors searching for evidence of notability, the article just isn't showing it. My recommendation is to draftify the article, have the creator spend some time working on other Wikipedia articles to get some experience of our policies, guidelines, standards and the community's way of doing things. If the subject truly is notable, then at some point there will be some coverage that clearly marks the subject as notable. At that point, submit the draft to AfC. And in case the close decision is to delete, the creator can always have kept a copy of the article code for later re-creation of the article when the subject becomes clearly notable. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Platonk. I don't think his noteworthiness was what started this. Even if he legitimately wasn't, it was telling him or me (creator of the article) to be ignored. That was a declarative command. With "cruft" adding insult to the injury. This isn't about the article anymore, and it's now out of my hands. I don't think it matters what you do with it now. ArcticFox55 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The word 'cruft' above is likely referring to the vast tomes of text and debate that you've added to this AfD (not the article) which is uncommon and distracting. I hope you don't mind I reformatted your comment to the indenting style which we're used to seeing in discussions (as an example). See also WP:AFDFORMAT. Platonk (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per JonnyDKeen. There’s not enough reliable sourcing here to justify this article. Right now it seems to exist to elevate this individual. It can be recreated if more substantial and reliable publications cover him. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Hey, all...I don't take any of this personally. Yeah, I worked hard on the article, but like, I could just get more sources and reupload another one in the future. Meanwhile, of course...it would make sense that you'd try to rationalize away MissVain's insult and command. Even if it was the "essays" as you call them, that was still a blatant command to shut me up, when the guidelines state clearly that I'm allowed to defend the article. And the article is the story of an underrepresented minority. So, it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER at this point what you have to say to me or the verdict for the article at this point. But hey...keep talking to me as if I even matter at this point. I don't. Do what you will with the page. I don't even think HE cares anymore. I have no idea what he's got planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 December 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.