Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Benjamin Mimms: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:06, 10 February 2013

Jared Benjamin Mimms

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Should have been Speedy. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just met this founder - historically significant, an unpublicized genius. I cited sources - if you need anything more, let me know. --Rhinotate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is provided that this person is notable. Pretty much every source provided is written by Mimms himself or has nothing to do with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please note that "unpublicized" generally means you fail the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what is the fuss about? "well publicized" is not a synonym for "notable" -- as a side note, the article does not violate any of the points made in the "Why we have these requirements" section of notability requirements 128.54.165.10 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
According to the people above, the sources are either primary sources (written by the man or his employers) or don't discuss him (if they're being used to cite a claim of notability, they must discuss him at some depth). Thus, your claim above is bollocks, and your editing history starts and ends at this AfD. SPA tagged. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of genuine notability, which means significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. We do not have that here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. (And the article is distinctly promotional in tone, too.) A speedy deletion tag was removed, but I think it could well have been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fine. Notable over here at UCSD. Falls under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." of WP:BIO 169.228.148.144 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.148.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and the article still fails to meet notability requirements. reddogsix (talk)

I could go through the requirements line by line and tell you exactly how this entry meets them - I'm through wasting my time defending this entry - this guy is legitimately notable, if you want to discredit yourself by denying this, you go right ahead. In the meantime, I am going to enjoy my private knowledge. I hope the community continues to defend this obviously notable character. Good night. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...again, the article still fails to meet notability requirements. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see a problem with this. Sources are clearly cited. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

The article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with 169.228.148.144 - this person invented new techniques. 69.229.28.31 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know what reddogsix is talking about. Mimms crowdsourcing and regulatory approval system alone is well known, at least in SoCal. 128.54.114.84 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entry meets all the requirements. Looks like an overzealous mod. 128.54.178.184 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Moderator overstepping his bounds. JBM is a notable figure. 128.54.96.168 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, {WP:V| verifiable]] sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry reddogsix, disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of independent, verifiable sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. 128.54.165.10 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:06, 10 February 2013 view source 128.54.165.10 (talk) →‎Jared Benjamin Mimms ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:06, 10 February 2013 view source 128.54.165.10 (talk) →‎Jared Benjamin Mimms Next edit →
Line 39:		Line 39:

	*'''Comment''' - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the [[WP:N\|notability]] using [[WP:I\|independent]], {WP:V\| verifiable]] sources. Just saying someone is [[WP:N\|notable]] does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. [[USER:reddogsix\|<font color="red">red</font><font color="black"><b>dog</b></font><font color="black"><i>six</i></font>]] ([[User talk:reddogsix#top\|talk]]) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the [[WP:N\|notability]] using [[WP:I\|independent]], {WP:V\| verifiable]] sources. Just saying someone is [[WP:N\|notable]] does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. [[USER:reddogsix\|<font color="red">red</font><font color="black"><b>dog</b></font><font color="black"><i>six</i></font>]] ([[User talk:reddogsix#top\|talk]]) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
	::Sorry [[USER:reddogsix\|<font color="red">red</font><font color="black"><b>dog</b></font><font color="black"><i>six</i></font>]], disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of [[WP:I\|independent]], {WP:V\| verifiable]] sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. [[Special:Contributions/128.54.165.10\|128.54.165.10]] ([[User talk:128.54.165.10\|talk]]) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)		::Sorry [[USER:reddogsix\|<font color="red">red</font><font color="black"><b>dog</b></font><font color="black"><i>six</i></font>]], disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of [[WP:I\|independent]], [[WP:V\| verifiable]] sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. [[Special:Contributions/128.54.165.10\|128.54.165.10]] ([[User talk:128.54.165.10\|talk]]) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)