Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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)[reply]

Michael Sayman

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Michael Sayman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Dream Focus 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    That already mentioned. Where is the DRN page you speak of? You should link to it. I saw this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which I have on my watchlist, the (3rd nomination) part standing out. Dream Focus 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did link to the DRN in my comment.... but in case you missed it WP:DRNNightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's correct. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • By the way, how about considering Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. One of the SPAs removed the G4 tag. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
        • 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Cullen328: 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] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sayman_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1005350730"
  NODES
admin 3
INTERN 1
Note 9
Project 3
USERS 5