Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (3rd nomination)


 * 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. There is a clear consensus that, despite the outcome of the recent deletion discussion, the current article meets the threshold of notability and therefore should be kept (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Sayman
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG. Radio Adept (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommending WP:SALT. This article was nominated for deletion earlier this month, with an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety just a couple weeks after page deletion. This is a repeat of previous such behavior, when the article was deleted with overwhelming consensus in November 2018, then re-created in its entirety just 3 days later. Radio Adept (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.  Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - how similar is this to the previous one ? It might be eligible for WP:G4 and may even need WP:SALT. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read through it and it's pretty much identical to the previous one, if not entirely identical. It could be WP:SELFPROMOTE for User:Purplehippo458, based on contribution history. I agree on needing WP:SALT. Radio Adept (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - One of the largest news outlets in Bolivia, El Deber, published an entire article about him having COVID-19 after he posted on social media that he had potentially contracted the virus: https://eldeber.com.bo/mundo/michael-sayman-dice-que-probablemente-tenga-coronavirus_169613 I believe this person qualifies as notable at least in Latin America, maybe not in the United States. Purplehippo458 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article's only context for Sayman is he was hired at Facebook at 17 makes this whole topic WP:1E. That is nowhere close to notable according to WP:BLP—otherwise Wikipedia would need an article for the youngest employee of every major company. Also, if you don't mind me asking: What is your relation to Sayman? Radio Adept (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are reliably sourced articles about Sayman from years before he joined Facebook, and other articles afterward that are unrelated to that part of his life. Over a year before joining Facebook, ABC News published this story about him helping pay for his parents' bills: https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/michael-sayman-16-release-9th-app/story?id=19328187. There is clearly more to his notability than being hired by Facebook at 17, including his involvement in the creation of Instagram Stories https://www.porchlightbooks.com/blog/excerpts/always-day-one which was also written about by Bloomberg News and can be found in the citations I added to his page. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Many people are hired by tech companies at young ages, and if that was the only notable thing written about him, I would have agreed with you on the case of WP:1E, but in this case I believe he does not fall under that rule. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I met Sayman once at a conference in Bolivia years ago and decided to start exploring Wikipedia when I realized there wasn't an article about him in English, but there was one in Spanish. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This People (magazine) article talks about his boyfriend and personal life, a year after coming out as gay, and is completely unrelated to him joining Facebook at 17. https://peopleenespanol.com/chica/michael-sayman-talks-about-coming-out/ Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sayman is a Forbes 30 under 30, I wouldn't delete the article. https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019/consumer-technology/#627e2d7869da. AstronautElvis (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Forbes 30 Under 30 recognizes 600 people/businesses every year. Itself does not confer much notability. Radio Adept (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sayman has been the subject of numerous features and articles and is certainly qualified for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun Sm (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)  — Shaun Sm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Admin comment: It looks very much like there has been WP:CANVASSing here, as some of the above "comments" are by editors who haven't edited in years but abruptly reappeared to come here to argue (but, oddly, not !vote) for keeping this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Purplehippo458 does mention above that he met Sayman once. More unusual is the nominator's first edit on Wikipedia ever was to send this article to AFD, and has made few other edits not related to trying to get this deleted. Special:Contributions/Radio_Adept.   D r e a m Focus  00:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've contributed for many years as an IP user. I made an account after attempting to follow WP:AFDHOWTO and being warned that unregistered users will get stuck midway through the process. Consider WP:CONTACTCU if you are unsure. Radio Adept (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep  - This version of the article has significant changes from the previous one. Many of these additions, including section 'Revelations in "Always Day One: How the Tech Titans Plan to Stay on Top Forever"' with a quote about Sayman from Mark Zuckerberg, contribute to his notability by highlighting additional areas of interest by the public on his influence in the tech industry and on products, such as Instagram Stories where the previous versions of this article did not. Furthermore, additional edits that cite his awards, autobiography, and political activism provide deeper context to his influence in Latin American culture beyond the role he had at Facebook. Purplehippo458 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the recent additions from the past few hours. But I'm not sure how his quote being used in a book and him being a fan of Bernie Sanders confer any additional notability. Radio Adept (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regardless of whether or not canvassing or unknown users have been commenting ignores the points made by these users. There has been legitimate evidence presented of the merit of Sayman work from outside sources. Discounting these because you don't like the post history of the user is an illegitimate argument. The issue here isn't whether or not the users are good, it's about the sources. Sayman has 43 sources, most of which are significant news outlets, reporting significant and notable work he has done. The article should stay. AstronautElvis (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Twice already consensus has been to delete, and the current version is broadly similar to the previous revision (including a great deal of exactly identical content). It's clear there is a concerted effort by someone to force this article onto Wikipedia, which we should not bow to. We should not allow commercial interests to dictate content on Wikipedia, and at this point keeping the article would be doing exactly that. This should be speedied under G4. Waggie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Making an accusation of commercial influence on this article is a very serious allegation to make. If there is solid evidence of commercial influence beyond the deletion history, this should be presented. Otherwise, this claim seems questionable, especially if considering the section on Lifestage. Lifestage was a failed project and a public embarrassment to Facebook and its engineers. A publicist would not put this information in an article. Therefore, this allegation seems unlikely, and asking the deletion process to be expedited under G4 would be unwise. AstronautElvis (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Wikipedia reference search link at the top of the AFD, and among the first few results are reliable sources giving him significant coverage. https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/michael-sayman-16-release-9th-app/story?id=19328187 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/facebook-s-21-year-old-wunderkind-sayman-leaves-for-google https://people.com/chica/latino-internet-genius-is-millionaire-at-21/  D r e a m Focus  23:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews, and articles clearly sourced from interviews (as all three above are) are not suitable for establishing notability. Per WP:PRIMARY Waggie (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Reliable sources giving coverage passes the general notability guidelines.  Primary sources are only concerned with verification of information in the article itself, not in determining its notability.   D r e a m Focus  23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears interesting, notable, covered substantially e.g. in this Insider.Com article (cited in the article).  I have no connection at all, found my way here by randomly checking at wp:DRN which mentioned this, after DRN came up on my watchlist.  I regularly participate in AFDs especially about historic places.  I will say, I am rather suspicious about 3rd or higher nominations of articles, which often seem, as appears to me in this case, to involve undue harshness/determination by repeated delete-voters to get their way.  I can't see previous versions of article, but this seems topic and coverage seems substantial. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources. Certainly notable, since 88 people per day wanted to read about him last year. Why do we want to keep sourced info from readers who want to learn? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DRN Volunteer Comment There has been WP Canvasing at the DRN page in favor of keeping the article. I have no opinion on keeping this article or not because I have not reviewed the source- but I thought it was fair to tell people this went on. 2 different editors opened 2 different DRN cases asking people to come here and vote keep. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That already mentioned. Where is the DRN page you speak of?  You should link to it.  I saw this on the WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which I have on my watchlist, the (3rd nomination) part standing out.   D r e a m Focus  00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did link to the DRN in my comment.... but in case you missed it WP:DRNNightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I requested in my DRN case that additional editors who have experience in the Latin American context contribute if they can to this discussion for deletion, regardless of outcome (Never used DRN before, as I'm fairly inexperienced, and didn't know that adding to Latin American group was the way to go). Purplehippo458 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being inexperienced is one thing- but you do have some responsibility for learning and following the rules before you get too far into something. And if you had read the top of the DRN page before posting, you would have seen that your post did not belong on that board. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you are certainly right. I was taken to this page, from a Google search, where it doesn't say much regarding that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request?withJS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.css. I thought requests for comment were different from what I was inquiring about, so I wasn't sure. I understand now and will be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplehippo458 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the post by Purplehippo458 was not appropriate for DRN, but I don't think it qualifies as WP:CANVASSING ("In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.") The wording was neutral, just looking for more editors. In fact, that's how I noticed this AfD. DRN would not be a good place to recruit editors of any one particular POV. Station1 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Protecting Sayman's page, which should clearly stay up, from frivolous deletion." That's an attempt to influence the outcome in a particular way, is it not? Radio Adept (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Station1 is referring to my DRN submission, you are quoting from another DRN I did not create. I think we're all on the same page that the other one you're quoting is unacceptable. I'm going to maintain focus on talking about the content of this article. Purplehippo458 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the posting at DRN, or at least whatever I happened to see, amounted to inappropriate CANVASSING. That guideline(?) mentions four factors in judging canvassing.  What I saw might have been a bit "Biased" rather than "Neutral" in tone, but its scoped was "Limited" and it was "Nonpartisan" (not reaching a likely biased group) and it was "Open" (rather than secretive).  I certainly don't want my view discarded simply because I mentioned seeing notice there. Also I admit myself being skeptical (i don't think that means "biased" in any bad way though) about 3rd and 4th and 5th deletion nominations, based on my legitimate experience with thousands of AFDs.  Others reached at DRN would have different perspectives, no reason to assume it would be an inappropriate audience to receive notice of an AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, how about considering Articles for deletion/50 Classic Ski Descents of North America (2nd nomination)? (This is not "bad canvassing".  I first "!voted" "Delete" there, but actually the fact of it being a 2nd nomination contributed to my deciding to dig in more, and I was converted to "Keep, but rework significantly" type view. Simply giving notice of an AFD is not a violation of wp:CANVASSING.  Maybe it is not strategic to mention this AFD to a group including some maybe stuck the other way than I am, about other-than-first AFDs.) --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged G4 - Let's just go ahead and skip the canvassing, etc. issues as unnecessary. We just had an AfD about this, closed as delete. WP:DRV seems like the next stop, not immediate recreation and canvassing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. One of the SPAs removed the G4 tag. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite correctly. I would have removed it myself. G4 is for articles "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Speedy is inappropriate for articles currently at AfD where there is controversy. There's a chance this article may be kept, but if not, there's certainly no reason to hurry. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What's changed? All I see that's new from the previous version are the section for the book quote, his new autobiography, his childhood photo, and him being a fan of Bernie Sanders. The rest had been present in the previous version and were recreated here. Radio Adept (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from all the things you point out, I see over a dozen refs added, as well as info about Roblox, the El Deber profile, and notability confirmed by Semana, Forbes and CNET. Station1 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tagged it not because I can see the original (I'm not an admin) but because it's not likely sufficiently different from the version that was just deleted by consensus at AfD to merit immediate recreation. I hoped CSD might save time/effort amid WP:MEAT drama. That said, I've elaborated on my reasoning below. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The references in the article at this time are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your reasoning for notability? The majority of references are sourced from interviews with the subject himself, and I see this as WP:1E—all references about the subject establish relevance by explaining he was hired at Facebook at a young age. While commendable, that does not confer notability by itself—otherwise, Wikipedia would need an article for the youngest employee of every major company. Radio Adept (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO this is a "process is important" example. When we have an afd closed with consensus to delete, I'm wary of legitimating what appears to be happening here: recruiting people to create or resurrect accounts to immediately recreate it and fight to keep it. I find it more troubling than getting an afd wrong. YMMV. [Update: Actually, I'm torn per my !vote below] &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasoning by Cullen328. Tone of the prose could be adjusted to comply with WP:NPOV to make it less promotional and puffery-laden, but that is not a purview of AfD. The allegations of canvassing is troubling, but should be reviewed separately from the question about the article's notability, which is the current extent of sourcing available to us as editors. Precedent in prior deletion discussions have established that prior consensus plays no relevant influence in any subsequent AfD's (e.g. previously "Kept" articles have been deleted in subsequent AfD's and vice versa). Haleth (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm torn. As I wrote above, process is important. When an article is deleted, it's not ok to just have it recreated/defended by a bunch of new/resurrected accounts. That subverts our processes and if it works, we might as well hang it up because there are more people who want to influence Wikipedia than there are experienced volunteers interested in maintaining policy-based standards. On the other hand, [sigh] yeah it looks like participants at the last AfD simply got it wrong. This is an easy GNG pass. So I'm conflicted. At the intersection of "process is important" and "our process failed," maybe the best thing is to just be pragmatic: Keep [reluctantly] and move on. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep We judge article subjects for notability, not the articles themselves. It is clear that, whatever irregularities in the creation of this article may have occurred, this article documents a notable person and deleting it for form's sake helps nobody. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been added to the article in the form of pieces in such outlets as Forbes, Business Insider, People, etc.  My limited Spanish suggests that there is a plethora of SIGCOV in media in that language, as well.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.