Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mugmon


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Mugmon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First strike: this article reads like a CV. We've got a nice little list of his achievements and some of his publications. The sources provided are all primary and/or non-independent – we have his profile from two different employer websites, an opinion piece by him, an article by him in the San Jose Business Journal, and a trivial mention of his name because he was the editor of the publication being discussed. A WP:BEFORE search found no better. He is occasionally trivially mentioned by name in articles like this one, but there is no coverage substantially about him.

Being named a "rising star" by a non-notable organization/publication does not indicate lasting encyclopedic notability. Nor does being placed on a dime-a-dozen listicle of "best X under Y age in Z place". Winning a Burton Award is kind of neat, but as a limited-audience award for an extremely limited topic ("clarity in legal writing") it's not such a significant award that it would shove him over WP:ANYBIO on its own. Add to that the fact that his win generated no significant secondary coverage, it's clear that he simply doesn't meet our notability threshold.

Side note: this article is ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd by an IP in 2017 and de-PROD'd by (courtesy ping). Unclear why the de-PROD was made exactly - the IP PROD'd a run of about a dozen articles in a very short time, so I'm guessing it was more of an objection to the PROD spree than a strong belief in this particular guy's notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why I de-prodded this thing. Clearly not my best day. :-/ But I think you can G5 this as created by a sock of . Katietalk 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it qualifies - Evidence-based was blocked Apr 17 2008, this article was created Apr 11, so it's prior to the indef. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I thought it was the other way around. You mean we can't just make up our own calendar? And rules? Katietalk 02:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not on Arbcom so I'm not allowed to do that anymore :P &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough significant coverage to establish GNG. Reads like a resume as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG Dartslilly (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, no signficant independent coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 12 January 2020 (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.