Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mandiberg


 * 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   keep. enough consensus on WP:N JForget  01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Mandiberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Heavily promotional; sourced by subject's own website. The article in Wired is a human interest piece that could have just as easily been about thousands of other non-notable individuals; it only notes that he is engaged in a long-distance relationship, not anything which might make him inherently notable. Heather (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom. Article seems to be about yet another self promoting non-notable individual. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly the article needs substantial cleanup, but notability is established by non-trivial coverage in Wired, a major national publication in the USA, plus approximately   21 news articles (per Google News Archives) and  14 books (per Google Books).  Those sources are not used in the article yet, but they show that the article qualifies per WP:BIO. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Although the article is in need of cleanup, that alone does not merit deletion. Notability is present; by the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think that Wired as well as the other sources listed in a Google search satisfies that criteria. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  23:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. He was not the subject of the Wired article--long-distance relationships were.  He happened to have one, as do thousands of other non-notable people whose relationships the article could have just as easily profiled.  Heather (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's not quite accurate. The reason the Wired article discussed this particular long-distance relationship is that Mandiberg incorporated the details of his experience in a published work of Internet art, described by Wired as a "new-media project", that is his area of speciality from what I've read in researching this AfD.  Mandiberg is on the faculty of City University of New York in the Dept of Media Culture, and his work has been displayed at the New Museum for Contemporary Art in New York City and elsewhere. Clearly, he's not a widely-known household name, but is notable enough that Wired did not choose him randomly, since his published work was directly relevant to their article.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - coverage by independent reliable sources not significant enough to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a significant artist with significant exhibitions.  DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - full disclosure - I think (can't remember) I was the initial author of this page and I happen to have had RL contact with Mandiberg, so take this with a grain of salt. BUT he's clearly notable. He's a published author, he has press, he's been reviewed in journals, and a simple google search of his name will get you more http://www.google.com/search?q="michael+mandiberg" - the long-distance relationship project from 2001 is missing the point. He's notable whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Agreed with Jack-A-Roe, needs cleanup, update, and other work... but keep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronthego (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets notability standard. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample sources to meet WP:N etc.  Ty  23:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are innumerable artists that have been published with small sources or are self published. This does not give them notoriety....Modernist (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (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.