Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Arth (2nd nomination)


 * 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. OK, subjects of an article are allowed to comment in deletion discussions about that article. That said, the consensus here is strongly leaning towards the topic and subtopics not meeting WP:SIGCOV criteria. I see some merge arguments but they have not really indicated how GNG/SIGCOV would be met even after merging; thus delete all it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is not notable, most sources are self-published, multiple COI editors have been involved in this page and those related to the subject, and the whole article reads like an advertisement for the subject. I am also nominating the following related pages, as they have the same issues:

WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt all. Promotional blurb for failed politician: nothing more. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete all of this walled garden. If there's any actual notability here, WP:TNT still applies, because it's buried so deeply under piles of promotion, puffery, and primary sourcing that it's impossible to discern. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think he is notable for being a land developer, as well as for his candidacy in the Florida campaign, which although it had no chance of succeeding, may have been similar to candidates like Vermin Supreme. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Obvious self-promotion, insufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability. - Donald Albury 14:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Delete all Merge. I've been attempting to look for any valid, verifiable source in these articles and it's quite difficult. Many are simply dead, many don't reference what they claim to, and many are self-published. Not notable, no sources available to improve with, etc. —Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Change of opinion: Could merging the articles create one main biographical article with strong enough sourcing to be notable? Is this worth an attempt? It seems that we may be able to take a worthwhile preliminary step in doing so. I'm shifting my opinion here toward merging the articles into the main Michael E. Arth page, while still acknowledging that its POV and sourcing are problematic as it currently stands. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think so. All of these articles pretty much exclusively reference self-published sources. I am not convinced that the subject is notable and his offer to on this page to provide outside sources is somewhat concerning. WMSR (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all land developeras are almost never notable for such, and he is no where near reaching the very rare case when they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all the theory/book/film articles, per David Eppstein; neutral on Mr. Arth's biography. gnu 57 05:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I am the subject of the article in question, but my personal interest in this discussion does not change the facts. It seems that Naddruf ’s nearly two dozen edits have addressed the various issues others have brought up with the article. On the notability issue, it seems odd to hear this being questioned, especially since the article has been up for over 12 years. Whatever you may think of the 358 edits made by 147 editors to the article--whether glowing, glowering, or anodyne--please consider the bare facts of my curriculum vitae at, which also has dozens of links to my articles, books, interviews, and films. Here are some of the items on the CV or its links:
 * I have made or was the subject of five, feature documentary films that have been in many film festivals since 2007.
 * New Urban Cowboy: Toward a New Pedestrianism, has a 9.3 IMDB rating, was in 12 film festivals, won an audience favorite award, and had a number of positive reviews.
 * The above film documents me rebuilding an inner city drug slum into the award-winning “mixed-use, mixed-income, mixed-race” Garden District neighborhood in DeLand,Florida.
 * My 2011 documentary on homelessness, Out of the Woods: Life and Death in Dirty Dave’s Homeless Camp, has had some 673,000 viewings on YouTube, and led to the building of a homeless shelter near Daytona Beach.
 * I am a widely published artist with many original prints and reproductions still in circulation (just search images for “Michael E. Arth etching”), and a large format art book, Introspective, which came out in 1983. I was also a member of the “Armadillo Art Squad” as a poster artist for the Armadillo World Headquarters in the Austin music scene in the early 70s. My etchings can be seen in the Harold Pinter written film, Betrayal, Will Farrell’s Semi-Pro, and the TV series, Stranger Things. I was also the subject of various one-man shows and my work is in several museum collections.
 * Have had two books published with at least two more forthcoming, and have written many articles.
 * Designed and/or constructed over 60 building projects in TX, CA, and FL.
 * Recognized internationally as an urban designer. I have given talks on my New Pedestrianism in the US, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands. For example, see this Dutch interview.
 * Ran for governor of Florida and was the subject of a documentary about it titled Gov’nor) . There were also four cover stories. These appeared in the Daytona News Journal, Orlando Sentinel, DeLand Beacon, and the Orlando Weekly. The Orlando Weekly followed up in another article with its endorsement.
 * Ran for president and is listed on Wikipedia as a “notable” presidential candidate at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
 * Featured in various print, TV and radio articles and interviews over the years, as cited in Michael E. Arth.
 * My UNICE/LOGOS public policy wiki is the subject of two academic papers and is already existing as a proof of concept.
 * Now working on a 13-part docuseries, The Labors of Hercules: Modern Solutions to 12 Herculean Problems.
 * MichaelEArth (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is inappropriate. I am aware that my edits, while reducing the self-promotion, have not solved most of the problems. It is unacceptable for most sources to be your own or interviews you took part in. For them to be notable, someone else must have discussed them. The fact that you published certain books isn't enough for them to be notable. The books must have been discussed by others. If you want to keep these articles, the best thing for you to do would probably be to remove your own sources and the paragraphs that they reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't encourage him to edit this as an autobiography. Doing so is against Wikipedia guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Naddruf I'm sorry I overstated your edits. Also, I did not take your comment as suggesting I directly edit the article. I know that is against the guidelines. However, I will soon find and list outside sources as you suggest here in this discussion. Then you or others can do with them as you like. MichaelEArth (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Finding and listing sources for others to insert into an article about you is equally problematic. WMSR (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: Sources Ok. No problem. No need to list here. There are many pages of independent sources/citations on my CV: http://www.michaelearth.org/pdfs/Michael%20E.%20Arth%20Curriculum%20Vitae%20(2019)-NEW.pdf MichaelEArth (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't seem to be getting it; your very presence on this page is itself problematic. Wikipedia is not your CV, it is not a forum to promote your ideas, and it is not a means to promote your political campaigns. Your CV consists entirely of self-published sources, and the fact that we would need to use your CV to find references demonstrates that you don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WMSR (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my presence on this page offends you, but I have declared my conflict of interest and others can judge for themselves if it is problematic. While my CV does have self-published sources, it consists mostly of non-self-published sources that can be independently verified by anyone editing the article. I'm no longer conducting a political campaign here or anywhere, unless it's to support a Democratic candidate who will oust Donald J. Trump. MichaelEArth (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:TNT. It's possible that enough reviews could be scraped together to make a wiki-notability case for something in this walled garden, but even in that hypothetical case, writing non-promotional material would require starting from scratch. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I agree with User:XOR& that there might be some notability hiding somewhere there, and also WP:TNT.  I further comment that it is apparent that any article would need to be monitored for promotional editing, and that the maginal (if any) notability probably doesn't justify the effort required at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge since there is definitely something worth preserving, although the main article should probably be trimmed to a well-referenced stub or start. Maybe the movie is notable as well? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:01, 13 November 2019 (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.