Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (ODNI)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Johnson (ODNI)

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

WP:BIO. He's not the Director. He's not the Principal Deputy Director. He's not one of the four Deputy Directors. He's not even one of the three Associate Directors. He's the *Associate* Deputy Director, which isn't one of the top 20 positions on the org chart. One Google news hit (cited in the article), but that leads to a dead link; only other reference is an internal newsletter. Tagged since 9/2007 without improvement. Prod removed because he "operates a notable website," but the article doesn't support that claim. THF (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * delete I tagged the article in 2007 and there is still only one fact that is referenced in a third party source and that is a broken link. All other information is from a press release from his former employer. I think many of these related articles should be cleaned out for the same reason. PDBailey (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as the person responsible for Intellipedia, a major information service. DGG (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is absolutely no evidence that Johnson is "responsible for Intellipedia." He's not mentioned in the Intellipedia article, and the single source cited in the article does not say he's responsible for it. THF (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any primary or secondary sources that claim that he is related to this project in any way? PDBailey (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. After a cursory search, I find a fair number of references in reliable sources.  I cant find too many articles about him as such, but quite a few reference him, including: The National Science Center (NSC) and the U.S. Army — A Partnership Benefiting the Nation’s Youth, Experts Consider Data Collaboration Strategies (which seems to label him an important expert) An article by Johnson, Another reference to Johnson as an expert, another, etc.  I found this many reasonably good references, after a quick Google search.  If someone's willing to do a little more work, the article could be brought up to standards quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs) 05:09 18 February, 2009
 * comment some of these just lift the same quote form his employers website sources while others are press releases (i.e. the US army acquisitions support center link). But the important questions is which exact criterion from WP:PEOPLE do you think is met? PDBailey (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going for the basic criteria: "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm not quite sure that this has been met, as most of the mentions in the articles above are admittedly trivial, and WP:BIO cautions that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", so I guess this is really a matter of just how trivial those mentions are.  I think it's safe to say that at least some of the material cited is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, so it really boils down to how we interpret "trivial".  I'll keep looking around for some others, but I think that there are enough citations up there, plus other out there to be more than just trivial.  I may, of course, be wrong.  Cool3 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Passing mentions in articles. Position not notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (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.