Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Demers


 * 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. Even if not a copyvio, the few notability concerns have not been addressed (that other topics have a page does not mean this one can as well) and all keep !voters are SPAs and aren't addressing notability issues, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Demers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Just as valid a page as Michael Mandiberg, Constant Dullaart or any other contemporary new media artist. Michael Demers is cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk • contribs)
 * — 73.253.57.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep No criteria for nomination is mentioned. This person has been mentioned/published in numerous reliable sources, based on the article and a search.198.58.161.137 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Theredproject speedy-delete-tagged page Michael Demers at 02:39, 25 December 2017 for copyright violation of https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Anthony Appleyard where is the copyright violation? All info on the wiki page is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The material on the wiki that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. If anything, LinkedIn is not citing properly. No issue here. Apexspry (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * — Apexspry (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep wiki page that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * — 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I stand by my Speedy Delete for WP:COPYVIO as it is a direct word for word copy paste from https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781. User:73.253.57.124 (who is/affiliated with the WP:SPA User:Apexspry?) asked User:Anthony Appleyard to bring it back, who nominated it for deletion. Re: "cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013" the page is linked on 6 articles, at least 3 of which were added by Apexspry, the original author of the page, and the remainder were added by SPA IP addresses shortly thereafter. It isn't on any other wiki projects. The reality is that the page hasn't really been vetted, per se: the article has seen light editing, and other editors have come through and removed puffery, and flagged the article for various problems, and Apexspry has repeatedly removed those flags. I also note that Apexspry claims the photograph of the artist as Own Work (it also appears on the linkedin page too) which implies WP:COI also. Closing mod should not the preponderance of IP and redlink commenters here in this AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if the copyvio is real, i.e. the Linkedin page predates the wikipedia page, then you should take action to clean it up. User Dianaa is usualy happy to revdel things.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Why doesn't someone just edit the page, instead of killing it entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand by my Keep for Michael Demers. I am not, nor am I related to or connected to, the subject as User:Theredproject implies, so no violation of WP:COI here. I have also not repeatedly removed flags unless I have made edits to the page to correct such flags. I am not quite the power user that User:Theredproject is, but I don't think that should preclude me from being a part of this community. I will make edits to the page, even though my information is cited from printed material, and User:Theredproject can hopefully move on. Apexspry (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you cannot !vote twice. Struck.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This sounds personal. User:Theredproject aka Michael Mandiberg is a new media artist, trying to censor the page of another new media artist? Conflict of interest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.78.78 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * — 155.43.78.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You need to Assume Good Faith. I don't see anything personal in the nomination.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The page has been revised as to not confuse anyone concerned about WP:COPYVIO. Apexspry (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete PROMO by SPA...likely a vanity page. Most of the anon "keeps" above are likewise SPAs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Folks, the original request of a Speedy Delete by User:Theredproject was for WP:COPYVIO. The page has since been edited to amend that complaint. Whether the page is a PROMO, or I'm a SPA, or I've got clones or am soliciting responses seem to be another issue -- and there are cogent arguments to be made against any of those assumptions (Assume Good Faith, right?). Can we resolve the issue of the WP:COPYVIO before we move on to these other (alleged) infractions?Apexspry (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The article is at AfD and my !vote is based on the merits of that issue. The article's subject is at a junior college and does not show any acceptable (for our purposes) impact w.r.t. publishing, books, cited articles, etc. (NOTE: There is another person having a similar name, who is well-cited.) You are a SPA in that your short edit record shows edits which only support the person of Michael Demers. There is a strong positive correlation with being a fan or vanity page, which in turn correlates strongly with not being notable. The article is basically promotional...another correlated bad sign. The sources aren't very good and the claim for notability is pretty flimsy, basically that this person is a professor and has taught. So, aside from whatever COPY problems there might have been, the problem now is demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing it. Agricola44 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Debate seemed a little suspicious, so I checked and tagged the SPA contributions. It seems that all the "keeps" so far are from SPA accts. Agricola44 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you tagged me incorrectly, and I have removed it. Check contribs properly before tagging like that.198.58.161.137 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Your account is 3 days old and you happened to jump into an esoteric area of internal WP debate at the same time as a whole bunch of other new-found accounts to "keep" this article? I guess you feel that because you've also made edits on a half-dozen other articles in those 3 days, you should be considered a seasoned, disinterested editor. Most seasoned, disinterested editors would not consider 3 days to be sufficient dues. Agricola44 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Me again, my IP reset. I counted 17 distinct pages that I worked on, including extensive edits to Gerald le Dain. Arrogant editors like yourself, who like to pick on IP accounts for no reason as you do here, are a significant problem in Wikipdia. I'm not an SPA, you tagged me as one...198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Super. Now we're going to play some childish games. Very constructive. Agricola44 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we get back to the matter at hand? The page has been updated. Does this satisfy the initial issues as raised by User:Theredproject? And can User:Agricola44 tell me how many edits have to be recorded before he stops accusing those of us with a just a few edits as SPA?Apexspry (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can be flippant about it, if you wish. Your edits have only supported Michael Demers, either on the article itself, or on other articles to insert his name. It suggests COI and lessens the credibility of your !vote. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete promo of a non-notable artist. Why do these SPAs think they are going to fool veteran editors who have seen their tricks before? Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 21 January 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.