Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Geier


 * 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. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Geier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article subject has references which include sales websites for merchandise, announcements for a club show where tickets are sold, and several other 50-60-70 word brief mentions on websites, many of which are unreliable. Not enough significant coverage is to be found here. Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article content deficiencies are not remedied by article deletion. Geier has a large internet presence, has a huge social media following and is covered by many reliable sources. I'm a little surprised that you've made this nomination without a single word of discussion at the article Talk page.  Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows subject is clearly notable. A news search shows 160 articles, one for his alter-ago "Puddles the clown" brings back 300 results. Many of those "brief" mentions are just short articles, it's not as though the subject is only briefly mentioned, thus is passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:TRIVIAL. In fact, all the references on the page are actually pretty good, can't see why this article would be deleted. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 21:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This was only a procedural comment about this AFD. It certain does belong here.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment An editor said here that I did not perfom WP:BEFORE.,  .  He is incorrect. I always do a before first, before undertaking a decision to place an article at AFD. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be advised I edited that comment hours before you made yours. I do not think you neglected to do a BEFORE, it was a poor choice of words that I immediately disagreed with, hence my quick edit. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 02:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that Section D, #3 of WP:BEFORE clearly explains why this AfD is erroneous. It states that if sources are found, it's a clear indication that the subject meets GNG and the article should not be nominated for deletion. Section #2 shows that if no sources are found, an AfD is ok, but that's not the case. As discussed above (and is clear to anyone reading this AfD by clicking on the "news" links above) this subject has hundreds of sources. So, the next step according to policy is that, "the article is not a proper basis for a nomination....Instead, you should consider citing the sources." S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 02:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As the nominator I !vote to delete the article because it fails WP:GNG. As I stated in the opening, many of the references are just passing mentions. They are brief and do not contain significant coverage in WP reliable sources.WP:RS.  At least three of the passing and brief mention sources contain only 50, 60, or 70 words. The 1st reference in the article is a list type book that contains 100 places to go in the ATL area. Each one of the 100 are around 30- 50 words. So the article subject is just 1% of the 100 places. So his reference is only a brief passing mention of 30-50 words in a whole book that is 1 of 99 others. So the article fails WP:GNG When one carefully examines the references quite carefully, one will also find that some of the references point to unreliable websites. See: WP:RS again if you must. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The explanation of WP:GNG uses this good example: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The majority of the articles listed meet this requirement. Most of the articles are 100% about Mike Geier and do not focus on anything else. The book in question is named "100 things to do in Atlanta", the sheer fact that this one individual made that list is actually an argument for notability and not against. A trivial mention is also explained in that GNG article as, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." So in this case, using that sentence is a good reference for Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page, but it is not enough to establish GNG for the band "Three Blind Mice". Understanding this, it's very apparent that the rest of the sources on the page Mike Geier are not trivial mentions. I will not disagree that many of them are short mentions, but there are no Wikipedia rules that disallow short articles. If 100% of the short article is about the individual, it's not a trivial mention, it's an absolute mention. These short sources are almost always 100% about the individual. As such, those sources stand strong. S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 02:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If this were an article, I would need to tag you with: WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Semmendinger, please kindly post your comments in chronological order. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They are in an order appropriate for the conversation they pertain to. Instead of talking here about unrelated things please direct all these types of comments to my talk page (found in my signature). <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 03:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This was only a procedural comment about this AFD. It certain does belong here. Someone will likely come along and correct the order the fix the mis-ordering of the AFD. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And you've been editing Wikipedia only since June, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content not the volunteer contributors. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A shame I can't tell you how impressed I am. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:SNOW This AfD is a joke, I checked about the first dozen of articles that come up in the NEWS search and most of them are articles completely about the subject, so he clearly passes notability. Robman94 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I too am seeing more than enough significant Gnews coverage across the US -- well beyond his home base of Atlanta. We seem to have ourselves a clown who passes GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The original nomination is partially right in the fact that their are plenty of trivial sources referenced, but fails to address the abundant non-trivial coverage this subject has received which can be scarred up with deeper Google searches. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep On wmflabs it is noted, that Mike Geier (Puddles Pity Party) has up to now 674052 views on en.wikipedia.org. He has meanwhile since months more than 1000 views a day. --Boehm (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Lucypaperclip must have coulrophobia (the fear of clowns). I see no other reason to even consider this article for deletion... Yes, one cite is an ad for his appearance In LA, and there are two Postmodern Jukebox videos, and PMJ does, in fact, sell its videos and other products online. All other cites seem to be from widely acknowledged reliable sources... GWFrog (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure PMJ's commercial basis invalidates its use in support of article claims. But these really are questions to be addressed at the article Talk, something which the OP has so far neglected to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2017 (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.