Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Garling


 * 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Garling

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Orphaned, foreign language articles do not exist and based entirely upon primary sources. There does not seem to be any reliable sources- probably an A7 candidate, but I don't feel comfortable speedying due to the fact the article, at first glance, doesn't look that bad. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I must reluctantly (reluctant due to the quality of the article) agree with the nominator. While there is the possibility that notability can be proven, I don't believe it is reasonable to expect it in this case. Narson (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no notability. Some of those listed websites don't exist any more (that says something about notability). The enthusiast's website Final Fantasy Insider is not notable, and because Garling posts content there makes it a primary and unreliable source.-- Lester  03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the fact that many of the sites are not working anymore it still does not constitute that deleting is the appropriate action as clearly a number of sources provide enough evidence to support the article's claims. From the current sources it can be deduced that Garling is a notable enough character for a Wikipeida page due to his significant contributions to the internet gaming scene. Therefore the article should be kept until further evidence arises. JleeLink (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the subject has never been mentioned by a single reliable source. Anyone can comment on forums, set up blogs and write for minor websites. Doing so does not make you notable in any way. If it did, I think the majority of us would be notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the core of my social experiment. I noticed that you have articles on actors that have effectively starred in nothing in their lives, people that are completely unknown to select circles and social niches/cliques.  Thus, I found this Michael Garling - his articles are read (beknownst/unbeknownst) to 15,000 individuals worldwide daily, and yet because it is an internet videogaming website, he is considered insignificant?  Thus, we find Wiki's personality flaws.  If the Garling user is deleted, does this not mean that other such D-grade actors should be deleted?  Or is it simply because a 'third-party' website has mentioned them once (probably upon their request) that they are allowed to remain?--RobbieMayona (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, this is Michael Garling. Thankyou for taking the time to write an article based on me User:RobbieMayona, and thankyou to the moderators for your civilised dealing with this matter.  I am unsure as to how many third party comments you may want, so I have taken this into my own hands at this point.  You will notice in the Final Fantasy Insider section and new paragraph, I have linked to a third party comment from 2006, there are more that I have access to/could find if required.  Thankyou for your time.--124.189.64.35 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the subject of commentary, not simply having the name on it, sadly. They would need to discuss your impact or discuss what you do, or other such joys. THey would also have to be a reliable source, I believe. I must say I'm a bit disappointed that RobbieMayona decided to use you to make a point rather than taking the discussion to the proper forums, namely the notability pages. AfD, IfD, MfD etc are to enforce policy, not set it, so I can't imagine what he thought it would achieve. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm unsure what he was looking to do either. All I know is, a Wiki article based on me seemed like an interesting move, and as soon as someone tells me I'll be "making a stand", I'm generally there.  As you have proved your point, and as I can't find the time to hunt down every single person that's ever discussed my impact, I would say it's time to delete the article.  Thankyou for your time everyone!  Let's hope User:RobbieMayona is able to see on the same terms and end the argument...--124.189.64.35 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite a well-written article, but writing for (now defunct) video game websites doesn't scream "notability". Due to lack of third-party sources on this person, I am forced to conclude he does not meet WP:BIO at this time.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (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.