Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaMangler (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 31 October 2009 (→Jeff V. Merkey: He wants it?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jeff V. Merkey

Jeff V. Merkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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

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]

  • 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]
I am not complaining about the section title. The section is about the Wikipedia biography but not about a biography of a person. This is non-notable cruft but is amusing for trolls to read. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Were these not your exact words? "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)" Or would you care to stike that comment? See you can't have your cake and eat it too.. In other words you are either questioning the editors motivations with regards to that particular section or you make an "oopsy" - 4twenty42o (talk)
  • 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]
MediaMangler, I'm not as informed about Merkey as you are. Perhaps you could easily persuade me to change my !vote, if you're game(?) Here goes. Ahem. The WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP of course OKs criticisms of public figures. Do you believe that all the news citations I saw with concern to Merkey only pertain to Merkey's infamousness and yet, despite their number, fail to push him over the threshold into public figure -hood, therefore he should be shielded from this coverage and hence an article on Wikipedia, due to the rest of the BLP guidelines as they apply to non- public figures?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give it the "Brian Peppers" treatment - the article has brought nothing but trouble to Wikipedia. I was part of the problem on that article two years ago; my edits to that article became a COI after certain comments were directed towards me off-wiki. Note the past tense on that. Arbcom dealt with the problem, and when my block expired, I left that article alone. I just wish the same courtesy would be afforded to me now. But I digress. The subject of said article appears to be unable to refrain from editing it from any number of sockpuppet and IP accounts. Take the target away from both sides permanently - the subject and the so-called "SCOX Trolls." The article should get what I call "the Brian Peppers treatment" - it cannot be restored, as it causes too much trouble. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Merkey is mentioned is so many contexts, that it would be virtually impossible to understand the scope of his work without a biography. In addition, he wants the biography. And finally, the notability guidelines are guidelines only and should be treated in the spirit of the word, not the letter of it. There are cases, like this one, where a person may be straddling that fine line. Merkey is named and quoted in many sources, as the main meat-object involved in the article.Wjhonson (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what basis you have for saying that Merkey wants the biography. Various accounts purporting to be Merkey have demanded its removal at various times, other accounts also purporting to be Merkey have made different demands. --MediaMangler (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one clearly passes the notability guideline WP:BIO vis-a-vis sustained signiicant media coverage of different things he has done. Everything beyond that is just article editing and drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_V._Merkey&oldid=323135128"