Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Potts


 * 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. Shereth 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Potts

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

No particular notability; interestingly, written in the same resume-like tone by the author of Amory Lovins and Andrew Wolk, which have similar POV issues. Biruitorul Talk 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the principal author. In support of the proposition that Michael Potts is a notable person, I have added links to two independent sources: a Rocky Mountain News interview with Potts, and an Aspen Times interview, both of which note his role as CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a POV issue, I would suggest that this could be repaired in the normal course of editing, rather than through deleting the article.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless notability can be proven aside from the three sources already given. The three sources listed on the article's page are certainly independent secondary sources that are probably reliable, but Michael Potts is not the subject of the articles; the subject of the articles is the change in CEO of the company. For example, the "4 Questions" webpage focusses on the CEO change and has only three paragraphs about Michael Potts, two of which are his own words about the CEO change. In my opinion the article thus fails the basic criteria of WP:N. --Samuel Tan (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retracted weak delete because article's author alerted me that he has supplied a new source here in response to the pending deletion. I can't access the new source's contents because I don't have a Goliath account right now, but perhaps someone with the account could log in to check if it helps the article's notability.- Samuel  Tan  16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * delete "Michael Potts" + "Rocky Mountain Institute" generates only one hit on Google News, hard to feel that he is the subject of extensive secondary sources given that... Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pete Hurt, the single Google News hit suggests that this subject lacks the extensive non-trivial coverage necessary for biographies. JBsupreme (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Principal author: While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. As a matter of record, there are eight cites to "michael potts" +"rocky mountain institute" on Google News archives. See for yourself here: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22michael+potts%22+%2B%22rocky+mountain+institute&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8Jhutson64 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the google news search I ran that returns one hit, which is .  Your archive search does indeed return more, I didn't know there was a difference between a google news archive search and a plain old google news search, now I do. Thanks.  I'm still standing by my original opinion however. I am not at all opposed to the idea of merging this Bio into Rocky Mountain Institute Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Principal author: Added link to Denver Post interview with Michael Potts, who speaks about his personal and business philosophies.Jhutson64 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nearly all the media coverage is about the institute, and not the person. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep. The sources are reliable, and I do believe that they constitute to significant coverage, even if the coverage is in relation to the institute. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think we have a pretty complete picture of the sourcing available now, and I think it doesn't constitute enough to produce an article. From what I can see, the only facts published in reliable sources about him concern his becoming CEO of the RMI.  There are also interviews with him, but interviews make for terrible sources, because they merely quote the person's words and do not imply that those statements have been checked for accuracy.  The fact that he was interviewed in the Denver Post, I think, does contribute to arguments for Potts being notable.  But notable or not, we need to be able to write a biography about him and we just aren't.   Mango juice talk 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice, does not have enough to warrant a biographical article at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (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.