Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Murdock

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Murdock[edit]

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

Non notable individual, part of a series of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT articles by COI editor to seek to promote her client whose article is also at AfD. The references in the article do not bear out his notability, just his existence. Several are primary sources, potentially administered by the article creator Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable, as Fiddle Faddle pointed out. Worse yet, this particular article appears to be an attempt to make the subject Murdock look bad, orchestrated by a "represenative" of an ex (at AfD), who is also creating a page for her "client" that is under discussion for deletion for non-notability. Rockypedia (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we assume good faith then this person doesn't come close to meeting notability guidelines. If it was created as an attack page (and the edit history doesn't look good for that, in my opinion, but not so bad I'm willing to call it) then a Speedy G10 would be appropriate, as this is BLP.--Talain (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have chosen to assume good faith. There are references that appear to portray the gentleman's behaviour as less than pleasant, so I considered it was possibly adequate in that regard. I have no quarrel with G10 though. I'd like us to be rid of this article anyway. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only fails WP:BIO, but it looks like it is an elaborate attack page. We also received a request to delete the article via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can anyone looking at this well-sourced article, explain how WP:BASIC is somehow not met? (IE: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.") If WP:BASIC is met, then issues with creator are put aside and we look to WP:HANDLE, which encourages improvement through regular editing... and not deletion of arguably notable topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll take a stab at this one. WP:BASIC also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would argue that this subject's coverage counts as trivial. A matter of opinion, I know, but I see no conflict between following WP:BASIC and recommending a delete for this article. Rockypedia (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: Understanding and following the instructions at WP:BASIC does not prevent anyone from offering their own interpretation of guideline and spousing a delete... it's just that a closer will weigh policy and guideline based arguments. 14 people can state "delete" and only one or two a "keep", and still have a closer evaluate a topic based upon policy and guideline and come up with a keep. AFD is not as head count. Guideline tells us "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and yes, also states "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Expanding, 1) "substantial" is not the same as "significant" coverage and 2) "may not" does not mean the same as "is not". Read WP:ADHOM. We should not paint all of a newcomer's contributions as automatically bad simply because that person lacks clue. In expanding my own expanded searches, I have found multiple independent sources discussing this topic directly and in detail... NOT trivial. WP:NRVE is met. WP:GNG is met. WP:BIO is met through WP:BASIC. THAT is what a closer will consider... not a weight of numbers. And toward the nomination's WP:VANISPAM argument, while it tends to instill an instant negativity toward a topic, essays are not valid deletion rationales. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My last response: While I respect your very obvious passion for keeping this article, to the point of making arguments against points that no one has even raised, I still can't see how this subject is any more notable than, say, you or I. When I click on the 'Find Sources' link for Mr. Murdock, I see the same thing that I see when I google my own name: a facebook page, "Justin is throwing a party", etc. If that counts as sources discussing Mr. Murdock directly and in detail, well, hell, I guess it's time for me to get a publicist and have them work on my article. ---- I'm joking, of course, as after doing some homework, I still don't see anything that raised Mr. Murdock to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response: I have no "passion" for keeping or deleting this new article, but simply wish that policy and guideline be applied evenly and without animus toward its newbie author or his errors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I did my homework before taking this stance. WP:BASIC is met. The suggested WP:CSD#G10 describes speedy criteria of "attack pages" which "may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The article presents its information neutrally and is well-sourced. OTRS is well and good, but if John Hinckley were to request through OTRS that the page about him be deleted because it described negative aspects of his life, we'd look to coverage and respectfully decline that request. We need to be just as careful in deleting as we are in allowing topics, and apply policy reasonably and evenly. Any G10 should be declined, as the properly-sourced article is not libelous (information is available outside of Wikipedia in multiple reliable sources), nor does it make legal threats, nor does it present information intended only to harass or intimidate a person (though the subject himself may not like his life being written of within these pages), nor is it "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Sorry Hinckley. Sorry Murdock. We only neutrally report within these pages that which is covered in more detail elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is an AfD, and not an attempted Speedy, I fail to see why your argument that it would not be deleted in that fashion is an argument to maintain it here. What is the rationale behind your decision here with regards to the issue of notability?--Talain (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you suggested the G10 above and another seconded your suggestion, my "rationale" is that a suggestion that WP:AFD discussion process somehow be circumvented required a response. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional article about non-notable individual. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Heir to a billionaire fortune, businessman and philanthropist. The article needs more referenced info, but it is a work in progress. Simply deleting his page because he is privileged does not make sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that if John Hinckley were to request deletion he would be turned down, but this guy's notability is marginal at best, and I think it is a case where WP:BIODELETE applies: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. Perhaps he will be when he actually inherits the money. For now, I woulds delete the article regardless of what the subject might want. The option to take account of the subject's preference should be used only for exceptional cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 16 November 2013 (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.