Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johns (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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Johns (executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Finishing incomplete nomination. User's edit summary was "Not notable, extensive sourcing used to hide that this is a vanity article." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information in this article is highly questionable. If the subject was born in 1964 and was thus 16 years old in 1980, how is it possible that he helped formulate the Reagan doctrine? Did he hold a high level post at The Heritage Foundation as a teenager? None of it makes sense, and it all reads like self promotion on the part of the subject.Alric28 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however I have not found any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources regarding the subject of this AfD, thus failing WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Subject of this AfD has written several books, but he does not appear to be notable according to the requirements described in WP:AUTHOR. Officer worked for some very notable individuals, however WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable, and working for a notable individual or a notable company/organization does not automatically make the individual notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON is also applicable? Either way I am not seeing any non-primary reliable sources that give significant coverage regarding the subject of this AfD. If/When those sources become available, the deletion can be reviewed and/or the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are, as RightCowLeftCoast notes, a ton of mentions in press, and he has a bunch of op-eds in major newspapers. However, the main coverage of him seems to be in Cross and Crescent Magazine, June 2007, where there is a two-page feature article on him (the link at the article is dead, here is a link to the PDF ). This and his being mentioned prominently in connection with the Tea Party and the generally high quality of the article overall, lead me to think that keeping this article won't hurt. Ray  Talk 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Absurdly exaggerated promotional article. Although he has never been elected to any position, or been head of any organization, there is some notability here, but the claims for the great importance of everything he has done make it necessary to have solid third party sources for every individual claim. For example "While Johns was one of the first and most adamant American advocates for U.S. aid to anti-communist resistance movements in their military uprisings against Soviet-backed governments during the Cold War, " needs a citation that not just that he was one of the first, and that he was one of the most adamant, but even that his advocacy of this position was even considered important by anyone but himself and his publicists. Given that he wrote "Moscow must decide: Is it committed to roiling troubled waters or is it ready to work with the West in opposing aggressors like Saddam Hussein?"  there needs to be evidence that outside reliable sources not affiliated with him think this statement meaningful in any political or historical context.  Even in this article, most statements are qualified "as one of several", "he and other ..." etc.  Indeed, many thousands of   people probably share most of the positions mentioned. This article would be appropriate to a political figure of such great importance that every one of his positions on public issues is worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia; for anyone of a less stature, it's puffery and promotionalism.  Obviously the article could be reduced in scope, but there would be very little left, & it would be fairer to remove the entire contents from history and start over.  DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (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.