Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)


 * 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   speedy delete. The article is unfortunately a copyvio of http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-j.-miller. I encourage someone to actually write from scratch a proper article, for I think editor in chief of PC Magasine is pretty close to unquestionably notable. vThere is a difference between merely having a significant position in a company " and being in charge of it. What is really scandalous is that it was here for 6 years before anyone thought to check for copyvio, and was exposed here at AfD for a full month before even the nom looked. I consider that the BEFORE part of Deletion Policy requires before coming here not just a check to see if there are references to be found that would support  notability, but a check to see if there is a valid reason for speedy deletion. Anything that look like a canned bio of anyone is, in my experience, more likely than not to be a copyvio.   DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. The single source in the article gives no assertion of notability, and is nothing more than a very brief mention of a name and position in a "who works for this magazine" section, meaning that this source is not independent of the subject. SudoGhost 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I would say that he is a notable individual, being editor-in-chief of PC Magazine. Granted, it's presumed notability, since a search for him turns-up a lot of primary source material from PC Magazine, because he was the editor-in-cheif.  But, he is a significant figure in technology publishing, with a long career. Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a position at a company isn't notable by itself, and he cannot be called a "significant figure" if there's not a single independent reliable source that can show this. This individual fails WP:BASIC, and an article can only be presumed to have notability if it meets WP:GNG, this one does not. - SudoGhost 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a position in a company would be notable if he is responsible for the creative vision of the product created by the company. Since this individual is basically a journalist, I point you toward WP:ARTIST, which covers editors-in-cheif of a journalistic publication. I think this covers him along with presumed notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ARTIST would still require independent reliable sources demonstrating that one or more of the criteria are met. The article needs independent sources, anything short of that fails WP:N: if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. - SudoGhost 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines, 'guidelines' being the key word. I've spent a rather long time searching for any sources other than primary sources, and I'm rather surprised I'm not finding any. Furthermore, I seem to recall that I voted to delete an article about a woman who was once editor-in-cheif of the NYT, a much more notable publication.  I may have let my bias affect me here. So, I'm changing my mind. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * delete per discussion above. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete this is the second time, I felt like a person who was important by his title, failed WP:N based on GNG. I think PC Magazine editor in chief is a notable person. I am in shock that he fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I just found a result behind a paywall at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=9&ved=0CEwQqQIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoliath.ecnext.com%2Fpremium%2F0199%2F0199-1762976.html&ei=D2XOT6r7C8jq2AXM8PTGDA&usg=AFQjCNHZCpdJyLF38HhLQPM_Bq-s-NH1Yw&sig2=-uC1xYOxIHk7dMZqwymRUw that says "PC Magazine's Editor-in-Chief Michael J. Miller and eWEEK's Editor-in-Chief Eric Lundquist earned honors as the top overall media influencers. " according to PR Newswire - Jun 6, 2002. That is about all I need to support given his title.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PR Newswire has been discussed on WP:RSN multiple times, and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source for establishing any notability. Press releases are not independent, and not reliable. - SudoGhost 20:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think pretty much anyone can do a press release in PR Newswire, kind of like vanity publishing. FWIW, the best secondary reference I could find is that apparently Mr Miller is in the Northwestern University journalism school hall of fame. Roodog2k (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - editor-in-chief of a big enough magazine. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not based in any policy or guideline, and the lack of reliable sources suggest it isn't "big enough". Articles require third-party sources; this one has none. - SudoGhost 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:BASIC.             -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Refbombing isn't going to give notability to the article. Those links are either not about the subject (failing significant coverage), primary sources, press releases or in other ways not sufficient to establish any notability.  - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read these links, or just paste Google results that showed the name? This one isn't in any way about the subject, but the name just happens to be listed on the side as a host of an non-independent event. That gives no notability. - SudoGhost 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No I didn't read all of them word for word. But yes, I assessed them. If you check the order they appear within Google's search results you'll probably note that I pasted them here in a different order (one which I felt to be more useful). Is there a policy which refers to refbombing? And had you seen all of those refs before, during your search per WP:BEFORE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2012‎
 * Using different search terms will yield then in different orders, but the order of the refs aren't relevant. You didn't read the references that you use to assert notability?  You assessed this press release from PR Newswire as an independent source? Or this one where the author says "I worked with Michael in 1988 when he was my boss at InfoWorld" as independent of the article's subject?  In what way do these links satisfy WP:BASIC, when they aren't even independent of the subject?  Why would you list a company bio to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument when WP:BASIC requires a source to be independent of the subject?


 * WP:REFBOMB is an essay, not a policy. However, that doesn't mean it isn't relevant; quality is infinitely more important than quantity.  Of the links you provided, not a single one is a third-party reliable source that's independent of the article's subject, and because of that none of them demonstrate any notability. - SudoGhost 07:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * REFBOMB is included in Essays on building Wikipedia under the 'Inclusion' section rather than 'Deletion'. It's referring to article space, not deletion discussions, where multiple references are often listed by editors who are trying to demonstrate notability without necessarily having the time to edit the articles themselves.
 * I'm not suggesting bunging all of the above refs into the article in one place, just after his name or something. I note Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately shores up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit.
 * I'll examine the sources in more detail here if I find the time, if no one else does it before me, and if the discussion is not closed beforehand. I count just 4 of the 12 refs which you specifically claim are unsuitable.
 * -- Trevj (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they are all unsuitable as third-party reliable sources, the four I specifically mentioned are just the random examples that unambiguously fail to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument because, they are in no way independent, which kind of undermines your reasoning. - SudoGhost 08:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it this is a notable person and a good article. OracleB (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — OracleB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Notability must be established, saying he's notable doesn't make him notable. - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Considering that this article has been around for six years it is pretty shameful for WP that it remains such a spamtastic hyperhyping chunk of promotional bloviation. The sourcing is pathetic and the prose frankly should not exist on WP. I have no opinion on the keep/delete question, but for the love of sweet baby jesus, somebody please fix this piece if it's kept. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but re-write, because, contrary to OracleB, this is not a good article. Per Carrite (whose comment is both true and hilarious), this article needs a re-write.  Seems that being the Chief Content Officer of one of the larger research publishing firms and Editor in Chief of the largest technology magazine seems notable.  AfD is not cleanup but this article needs work.  I'll work on it if it's kept.   Vertium   (talk to me)  03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by sources, not positions, unless you can point to some guideline to the contrary. Which sources show notability? This article doesn't have any independent third-party sources, which is what all articles require. - SudoGhost 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Just so you're aware, I read all the previous comments and saw your comment above, so no need to repeat it again after my comment.  I do not have the time right this moment to dig the citations (it's bedtime here), though his bio indicates that he's received several awards for his writing and editing, which would be notable.  I don't see a reason for deleting an article just because it does not have the citations right now, when it's reasonable to believe that the subject of the article is notable.  Hence my offer to work on this article if it's kept.   Hope that helps you understand my reasoning.   Vertium   (talk to me)  03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, well what do you know. The entire article is a copyright violation of this website, word for word.  If you'd like to work on an article about this individual, it would be best if you created a new one from scratch, ensured that it had suitable third-party reliable sources, and then moved it to article space after the fact.  Even if it wasn't a copyvio, it has zero independent third-party sources, and even if his bio claims to have awards, without verification of such by independent sources, it fails even the most basic criteria required of all articles. - SudoGhost 04:08, 5 July 2012 (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.