Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 31 October 2009

Jeff V. Merkey

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

This article doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline for biographies. Specifically, I am not seeing any evidence of reliable, third-party coverage for which this individual is the subject. There are some reliable sources that cover companies or groups for which he has worked, and a minor Wikipedia controversy in which he was involved. Other sources are unreliable (Maureen O'Gara, mailing list posts) or non-independent (Merkey's own website). An article might be justified on GaDuGi or Wolf Mountain Group, but I'm not seeing the case for an article on Merkey himself, any more than on Daniel Brandt or Judd Bagley. Given the amount of trouble that this article and its subject have caused, we're probably better off with deletion. *** Crotalus *** 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not based on the article as it is but on the fact that a perfunctory Google search provided me with any number of legit news articles that conatain specific mentions of Merkey's actions or positions on various matters and ventures.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article needs a lot of work, maybe even a re-write. This is a list of his registered patents. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30199249_ITM, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30213951_ITM, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600121953/19-new-patents-include-device-for-immobilizing-patient.html?pg=2, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595099196/22-new-patents-include-mutated-gene.html?pg=3, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595064954/Grip-glove-among-15-new-patents.html?pg=2.. Merkeys approach and attempted ownership of the article in question has been opposed and dealt with. Merkeys last block resulted (so far) in others being able to edit the article without his interaction. There does not appear to be anymore sockpuppetry. Therefore I think the article should be allowed to remain and possibly be re-written. We are not talking about an article on the kid next door writing script in his basement on mom computer. This is supposed to be an article about a person who has spent a good deal of time making a name for himself off Wikipedia (as well as on) and has been moderately successful in doing so. Also, perhaps when considering a re-write we need to include things like "Merkey claims, via his personal webpage that... etc" - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This mess is not an article. The Jeff V. Merkey#Wikipedia biography section is not about a biography but about this Wikipedia page. The page is littered with non-notabe cruft that is only amusing to trolls. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So instead of deleting it, lets fix it. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting it is fixing it. This page is not about Jeff. It is about non-notable cruft like Wolf Mountain Group. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough, as shown by the sources cited. Article should be improved not deleted. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable. Article should be improved not deleted. Crafty (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mainspace is not a place to experiment when editors admit the article needs improvement. An editor can start a sandbox and if it meets Wikipedia's notability then it could be included in mainspace. For now, we must concede delete for a non-notable person. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? Citizendium is here whereas this project is a full-on Wiki.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you with the crowd that thinks the Jeff V. Merkey#Wikipedia biography section is part of a biography? QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That section you call biography originally said controversy and was changed by User:QuackGuru to read biography. I reverted that change as it was not a biography but a controversy section and was reverted by User:Ronz. Check the page history. You are the one that made that change QuackGuru. So why are you complaining about it? - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus about what content is appropriate in a biography has changed. Merkey's notability is fundamentally tied to the material that was deleted from the article and which will not be returned. He is notable solely because of the amount of ridicule his actions have engendered. Documenting those actions necessarily made his Wikipedia bio the source for further ridicule. I have obsessively followed this article from its inception and actually preferred the deleted version, since it was absolutely accurate, but the long fight to finally remove Daniel Brandt among other BLPs seems to have shown that the community does not want to preserve articles whose only real value to Wikipedia are as magnets for controversy. --MediaMangler (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:17, 31 October 2009 view source 4twenty42o (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 12,798 edits →Jeff V. Merkey: comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:02, 31 October 2009 view source MediaMangler (talk \| contribs) 896 edits →Jeff V. Merkey: Delete Next edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:

	*'''Comment''' That section you call biography originally said controversy and was changed by [[User:QuackGuru]] to read biography. I reverted that change as it was not a biography but a controversy section and was reverted by [[User:Ronz]]. Check the page history. You are the one that made that change QuackGuru. So why are you complaining about it? - [[User:4twenty42o\|4twenty42o]] ([[User talk:4twenty42o\|talk]]) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' That section you call biography originally said controversy and was changed by [[User:QuackGuru]] to read biography. I reverted that change as it was not a biography but a controversy section and was reverted by [[User:Ronz]]. Check the page history. You are the one that made that change QuackGuru. So why are you complaining about it? - [[User:4twenty42o\|4twenty42o]] ([[User talk:4twenty42o\|talk]]) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

			*'''Delete''' Consensus about what content is appropriate in a biography has changed. Merkey's notability is fundamentally tied to the material that was deleted from the article and which will not be returned. He is notable solely because of the amount of ridicule his actions have engendered. Documenting those actions necessarily made his Wikipedia bio the source for further ridicule. I have obsessively followed this article from its inception and actually preferred the deleted version, since it was absolutely accurate, but the long fight to finally remove [[Daniel Brandt]] among other BLPs seems to have shown that the community does not want to preserve articles whose only real value to Wikipedia are as magnets for controversy. --[[User:MediaMangler\|MediaMangler]] ([[User talk:MediaMangler\|talk]]) 01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)