Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Frost (skysurfer)


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources are inadequate to establish notability for the reasons described by Insertcleverphrasehere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Mike Frost (skysurfer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find any reliable sources about this guy, or verify any of the claims about world records or gold medals. He definitely exists, but doesn't appear to be notable. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to failing WP:GNG, it appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO who has been trying work in mentions of himself in related articles as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry as I'm quite new at Wikipedia and have removed most of the bio detail. The internet did not exist when i first started skysurfing and as such find it difficult to secure all the sources so have removed much of this although i can assure you it was exciting. I have been asked by the British Parachute Association to conduct a live web-strem and seminar on skysurfing in January to re-introduce the sport to the global community and would like them to have a point of reference and contact for them so they can undertake this safely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I stopped skysurfing following a major accident and have only re-started in the past few years, now my children are much older and not so reliant on me. I would appreciate any support to make my bio better - please do suggest any changes you think i should make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a webhost for people to post bios about themselves in order to help there public image. You should not be writing about yourself at all per Wikipedia's policies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for the advice.

I've read the policy on self promotion and whilst it is permitted, i believe the amended page maintains a neutral point of view and is no longer an auto-biography, it is not intended as a means of self promotion. I will continue to update to improve and would appreciate any further input you have.

I have published on the topic of skysurfing (in particular 3-ring release systems) as the information contained on the page was either not available or inaccurate. With limited information available to anyone looking to undertake such a hazardous activity it is vital to be accurate. I will continue to edit this page with further detail of the systems which our small but global community are supporting.

Best wishes mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and is wholly WP:SELFPROMO. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jmertel23

I have amended the page considerably and believe this does not contravene the self promotion policy.

I have also read the policy regarding GNG, and believe the page is impartial, with no links to web sites, no auto bios, advertising and sources are all independent. I am more than happy to make any further changes you suggest?

Best wishes, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have put a bit of work into making the article less promotional. I'll have a look at each source on its merits. We need at least 2, preferably 3 sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The numbering below is as of the writing of this comment:
 * Source 1 contains an article that Mike Frost wrote in a magazine: Not independent.
 * Source 2 is an article for The Independent, written by a third party, it contains numerous long quotes directed at the author; While not in interview format this makes me think this was more of an interview, which doesn't count towards notability because of non-independence (Borderline at best).
 * Source 3 contains a long piece on Frost, but is clearly an interview which can't count towards notability.
 * Source 4 is a blog with a passing mention and is not a reliable source.
 * Source 5 is a forum post which is not appropriate for use at all.
 * Source 6 another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.
 * Source 7 is just source 2.
 * Source 8 is an interview. Not independent.
 * Source 9 appears to be an advertisement featuring a picture of Mike Frost. Not significant coverage.
 * Source 10 is another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.
 * Source 11 is to a Wikipedia page revision edited by Mike Frost. This is not an appropriate source, nor is it reliable or independent.
 * Source 12 does not seem to mention Mike Frost at all, though I can't be sure as I'm relying on google translate. In any case, it is about 'extreme Ironing' not about Mike Frost.
 * Source 13 His picture appears on the cover of this magazine. Not significant coverage.
 * Source 14 Forum post. Not reliable, not independent, not significant coverage.
 * Source 15 appears to be a published book. Seems fine as a source, Probably reliable and independent, but is only a passing mention of Mike Frost, therefore not significant coverage and not suitable for contributing towards notability of the topic.
 * Source 16 is a couple sentences, a quote from frost and a photo and an announcement of winning a trophy. Not Significant coverage.
 * Sorry mate, but nothing here demonstrates that the topic is notable by Wikipedia's requirements for topics that have standalone articles. At best we have one very borderline source (source 2). We need at least 2 solid ones that satisfy the golden rule. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    13:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete all autobiographies are banned on Wikipedia and we need to actually enforce this rule with hard and absolute deletion of everyone we find. We have way too much presentist bias without people mucking things up by creating articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - just because one editor fills in a single citation doesn't mean it's no longer at autobiography. It's still an autobiography in violation of our rules. Wikipedia is not a government agency paid for by your taxes; nor is it a free web host, nor a resume service, nor a place for original research as this is. We are a charity, and if we give away our assets we risk losing our tax-exempt status by Letitia James (who just shut down the Trump Foundation and fined the POTUS $2,000,000), or being placed in some less attractive category by the IRS. If this was 2001, or 2007, or even 2014, I could understand - but this 2019. Everybody should know what Wikipedia is after 18 years; feigned ignorance is no excuse. Just looking at the edit history and the discussion above, it's impossible to assume good faith that he is just trying to make his activity safe for the children. Almost every edit posted by the created has been tagged as minor, even when it's not. This page does lacks a neutral tone and reliable sources, and is extremely poorly written and coded. Not every single human being, even someone who has accomplished much, as the subject appears to have done, is deserving of an encyclopedia article about them. Don't take it personally - all humans want to be immortalized but nothing the subject has done so far is more than usual. I'm sorry, but the subject is not yet notable, not even close. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2019 (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.