Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Moon

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 no consensus to delete defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a merge on the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael A. Moon

Michael A. Moon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Seems marginal, especially for such a small part of his workl. I have already merged what he is "most notable for" into the Chand article, and that seems to work. The other two tidbits can probably be merged into the seperate articles as well. Seems marginal, and the subject requests deletion on otrs:1501807. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, he's a leading attorney in the largest Terrorism investigation in Canadian history, one which made headlines across the world - and was referenced by the administrations of both Tony Blair and George Bush as a grave threat and tremendous operation. He's not the attorney for one of the lackeys, he's the attorney for the alleged leader of a group that intended to storm Parliament, behead the Prime Minister and hold Cabinet members hostage until their demands were met - as well as purchasing Ammonium Nitrate to blow up various targets across Southern Ontario...the allegations may or may not be true, but it's certainly the equivilent of the "OJ Simpson" case - and the attorneys, whether they like it or not, are "public figures", especially the ones who speak to the media.

The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users, including both Moon and Mubin Shaikh, and he's chosen to not only take this case, but involve himself in the Supreme Court hearing of Omar Khadr. Certainly not a non-notable lawyer we're dealing with.

Not that it matters, but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly.

User statistics for these edits: Number of users: 17 33.33% IP/anon edits (22 edit(s)) 62.12% other users (41 edit(s)) 3.03% administrator edits (2 edit(s)) 1.52% bot edits (1 edit(s)) Time range: 212 approximate day(s) of edits || 212 approximate day(s) since first edit Most recent edit on: 12:28, 27 April 2008 Oldest edit on: 20:47, 28 September 2007 Current time: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:42:10 UTC Analysis: Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s)) Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0% (0 edit(s)) Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.24% (16 edit(s)) 48.48% marked reverts (any) (32) 42.42% probable reverts of vandalism (28) Unmarked edits: 27.27% (18 edit(s)) Averages: 66.67% edit summary usage Average edits/user: 3.88 0.312 edit(s) per day (current) 0.312 edit(s) per day (since last active) 0.151 marked revert(s) per day (since last active) 1 : 0.94 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV) 40.91% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (27 edit(s)) 9.09% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (2 out of 22 edit(s))

Then we ought to include a piece in that article. I don't think this one is notable enough for an article based on the small amount of his work. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear to me exactly what point the nominator wanted us to conclude with these statistics, above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the above comment by Sherurcij, when s/he said The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users. The point was, there is nothing to infer about these stats, they are meaningless. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "...but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly..." No offense, this does not look like an attempt to "do it properly". Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

None taken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The edit analysis means nothing, and should not be used in this debate. That was the point I wanted to make. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the "subject's request for deletion", he actually trolled WP and threatened to sue its "close-minded, ignorant Wiki-fascists", and has been blocked twice, and called the blocking admin a "closet fascist" who "wants to advance terror". He then proceeded to announce that he was reporting people who work on his article to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canada's version of the CIA).(evidence). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the subjects behavior on Wikipedia have to do with this deletion debate? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who said he "requested his article be deleted", I'm merely pointing out the context - this wasn't a polite "Excuse me, I believe this article should be deleted", it was a hyperbole-fuelled rant that led to him being blocked twice for threatening users and threatening legal action against WMF, as well as involving Canada's domestic spy agency...people who vote presumably deserve to know the context of his "request". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not pee in the water. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to 2006 Toronto terrorism case. Though it's a prominent case, his role is ultimately not as an actor but as an advocate, and almost all the sources are about the case rather than him. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, not to harrass you - but I want to point out that the majority of lawyers and judges who have articles on WP don't have articles "about them", but about the case in which they're involved. Whether it's Leonie Brinkema or Dennis Edney. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- I don't see where this nomination suggests that this article violates any policies. Let's only nominate articles for deletion when they violate policy, OK? What troubles me about this nomination is that it seems to assume that merging related articles is a good idea. One of the most powerful features of modern hypertext systems, like the wikipedia is that they allow readers to wend their own path through the universe of human knowledge. Merging related articles, and then arbitrarily deleting some articles, is, IMO, a very grave disservice to readers. Nominator has no way of knowing whether readers go to the Moon article are going there because they are interested in Chand, or interested in Erhun Candir, or interested in his role in the Omar Khadr case, or interested in his article for himself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally include biographys on marginally notable people. A good way around this is to merge the article into the notable event, rather than have an article on a non notable person. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't merge them into other biographies. If a "non-notable person saved Mariah Carey from oncoming traffic", we wouldn't include an article on that person - but if a lawyer becomes a public figure in an international terrorism investigation, giving interviews to the media and such, he's certainly not "marginally notable". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Source 1 is about him but there's almost nothing there, like at 6. 5 doesn't even mention his name. I don't have access to 7 and 8, but from their titles they also don't seem to be about him. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-27t20:59z

• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. If we keep it as is then I would have to question a lot of the articles that have been deleted about e.g. business people who have had a much wider ranging impact on the lives of people. This guy, in reality, has impact on the life of 1 person, who may, or may not, be the ringleader of a proposed terrorist attack, but that in itself cannot be considered enough to establish notability. PRasmussen (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I see at least 4 major cases with great news coverage. Leading in such cases is what makes lawyers notable. DGG (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, insufficient sources independent of the investigation, subject requests deletion, WP:NOTEVIL. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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.