Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Minns

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. I don't believe there is enough here for WP:BIO. He's an attorney; sometimes attorneys talk about their job to the press. A few "this attorney says" soundbites and a vague wave towards authorship do not convince. No prejudice to recreation with more convincing sources, though I note this article has been re-created an number of times. Black Kite 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Minns

Michael Minns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Autobiography of Non-notable subject. The same article appeared earlier at least six times as Michael Minns and Michael minns and was speedily deleted on each occasion - see also User_talk:Michael_Minns and the Edit summary with which the article was created. Ros0709 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

comment/concern - User:Roughhauser, who is now editing the Minns article, may be a sockpuppet of User:Michael Minns (who has been given the usual notices about COI and autobiography); look at Roughhauser's sandbox! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

After the article was repeatedly speedily deleted on grounds of notability, and Michael Minns told of the problems with creating autobiographies, Roughhauser was newly registered and created the near identical article we now have, using the edit summary cited above which clearly references the article's previous history. I have no doubt it is the same editor but as the Michael Minns incarnation was not banned and has not contributed since this can be legitimately allowed. As an attempt to circumvent any accusation of WP:COI it's pretty lame and as the Michael Minns incarnation was at final warning for recreating the article (and would therefore likely be banned if he had created the article this time) it could be considered an attempt to circumvent policy. However, this nomination is about the article itself: if the editor had a conflict of interest it may have impaired their judgement on notability when they created it but it can still be reviewed objectively on that basis by everyone else here. Ros0709 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It appears to me that the article for Michael Minns was just recently created by a new editor named "Michael Minns." The article was deleted by another editor, and was repeatedly re-created by editor Michael Minns. The article as originally written just came across to me as blatant advertising. Other editors deleted the article, and Michael Minns continued to re-create it. After the re-creation tactic did not work for Michael Minns, Roughhauser came on the scene and re-created the article yet again.

Is the subject notable?

The material in the article cites to court cases involving Michael Minns as legal counsel. Minns' clients won in some cases, lost in at least one other -- Richard Hatch. A relationship with a well-known person (e.g., Hatch) does not confer notability. (See "Invalid criteria" under WP:Notability (people).) Being the lawyer for Richard Hatch in Hatch's criminal tax case does not in my view support notability for purposes of Wikipedia. Similarly, being the lawyer in the other cases mentioned also does not support notability, no matter how important or historic Michael Minns or Roughhauser feels the cited victories are. Michael Minns and Roughhauser (and I, Famspear) are Wikipedia editors, not independent, third party sources. This is in no way a denigration of the subject of the article as a tax lawyer, etc. Rather, the Wikipedia concept of notability for an individual relates in my view more directly to the following Wikipedia concepts.

from WP:Notability (people):

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability.

And:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Has the subject, Michael Minns himself, received "significant recognized awards or honors"? Has the subject "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in the field of tax law? It looks to me as though Minns has been quoted as a legal expert in a few articles on topics such as the recent tax convictions of actor Wesley Snipes. Again, merely being quoted a few times in the national media -- even in the New York Times -- does not in and of itself support Wikipedia notability. Further, the articles in question were not about Michael Minns.

I don't think I could come into Wikipedia and say, "Look, these are all the important things I have done, these are the important cases I won for my clients, so I want an article about me here" and get an article about me, say or "look, I was quoted as a legal expert a few times in the national media, so I want an article about me here in Wikipedia."

For purposes of an encyclopedia, the notability of a person is assessed not on the basis of how important that person believes his accomplishments are. Neither is is based on how important his friends believe his accomplishments are. Notability is based more properly on what previously published, independent, reliable, third party sources have already written about that person or about what that person has accomplished. Famspear (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Salt the earth. References given do not provide a convincing case of notability. This article has been recreated six times (!); there is strong evidence of WP:Conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, etc. Time to drive a stake through its heart.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys really talk this way about people? That seems a bit too funny for words...How ridiculous. I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. The article stands on its own merit, and as such if you have questions, you should and can just ask them. If you don't understand the merit of the cases mentioned, please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here. I will reprint the reply to Famspear here, but I will keep going if you shoot me down for bad reasons as I am seeing purported here...

Well, I don't think the implications you set forth are particularly fair or appropriate. I am not Michael Minns. Michael Minns never asked me to write an article about him. I wrote it because it's notable phenomenon in my view and in the view of the tax law media and the major media that I have checked out. As to the more legitimate issues of notability and neutrality, I will address those...The answer to all your questions on notability is an emphatic "Yes". Awards: Yes. Published materials: Yes, of course, part of which is already cited. Contribution historically to field of tax law: Most definitely...Yes. If you want more specifics on anything not already cited in the article, or on the Internal Revenue Service article, or on the Richard Hatch article, or any of the other articles that probably exist including his name, or from the major online media articles like NewYorkTimes.com, perhaps you can go take a look there first and then ask me. Your mention of Wesley Snipes is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. And the article does not state that Minns is notable for merely being a media commentator on such famous cases, nor was the fame issue ever stressed, but rather states (or stated originally before you edits) that his cases are historic. And historic means just that: historic (ie., "notable"). Aside from the two landmark cases listed...Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, the Associated Press (not to mention previous articles on Wikipedia) all think Michael Minns is notable enough to have already had him on their shows and to comment on law cases and to write about him and his accomplishments, and reprint the material on their websites for anyone to find with so many stories, that he must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own? ...especially seeing as how he is already mentioned by name as a significant critic in Wikipedia's Internal Revenue Service article, in the Richard Hatch tax trial article on Wikipedia, and from what I am being told as I inquire further, probably many other articles on Wikipedia? You are questioning the article and there seems to be a question of whether or not this article is neutral, or if there is a conflict of interest on MY side...what about a tax lawyer Wikipedia editor who takes a sensitive approach to another tax lawyer being written up? As for the media cited above and in the article, are the main major media suddenly not "independent, reliable, third party sources"? If not, then who is? The two cases cited are two of the most notable tax field cases in relation to the IRS and to the field of tax law in the recent past, and the reason that these two were singled out was their newsworthiness and notability. Moreover, Minns wrote two books on his IRS cases and on the tax code and on the nature of notable tax trials which Ron Paul coauthored. These do not sound to me like facts associated with a non-notable person. When you ask me notable enough, I am thinking that perhaps you are just not familiar enough with this level of detail on the history of the field to see that the references are pointing out the notable aspects, maybe not as famous as Aaron Russo or Joe Banister, but in terms of the field of tax law, this stuff is very significant. The Morans case alone is the biggest clear win on all counts since the 1960s, which says that it either had become much more tough to do, or else much more unlikely to be possible to do. Either way, that is very significant. The article is not a huge one for the reason that it does NOT seek to overexagerate Minn's importance unduly. That is also why Hatch was only now mentioned, as a sidenote that would be of as much interest in his article as it would to those who fund your existing Richard Hatch article's mention of Michael Minns...

I did some additional research and got the following... See the following list of accomplishments that support notability in addition to what has already been set forth in the article:

1983 Arkansas vs. Norma Ginter Capital Murder Trial Not Guilty. co-def. Husband was convicted.

1983 US vs. Irene Udey (Harbouring of Tax Protester Gordon Kahl) Not Guilty. All five co-defendants were convicted. (see millions of papers and a movie and a couple of books)

1989 or 1990? Johnston vs. Daughter largest counterclaim on a divorce in US history. 18.3 Million dollars. Johnston was indicted on the evidence and disbarred. (Texas Lawyer) (appellate court reduced Judgement to 6.1 mill.

1989 US vs. Buford 889 f2d 1405 Largest numbers of aquittals for tax preparer In US History.

Pilot case. 1300 pilots on refund. (not just from American Airlines) Largest Test Case Petitioner reversal in US history.

Led to disbarment of two lawyers for IRS on the pilot case.

US vs. Morans 2007 Largest number of complete sweep aquittals on off shore tax Charges in Us history.

Roughhauser (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

pgagnon999: You have not actually provided ANY evidence as yet. Please do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughhauser (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Your rhetoric here is an unusually close match to that of User talk:Michael Minns, let alone your singlemindedness. Sockpuppetry and conflict of interest aside, if any of the above mentioned claims to fame are true and notable, then it should be fairly easy to provide a newspaper article that extols Mr. Minns' fame as a lawyer. Keep in mind that this is not a court of law; as the person who created this article, it is up to you to provide the proof of notability if you would like this article to survive. It would also be worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia definition of WP:Civility, yet another social norm here that may not always hold true in the American courtroom. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Dear Roughhauser: I assume from your comment here [1] and your comments just above -- that you are admitting that you are also Wikipedia user "Michael Minns" (but not the actual person Michael Minns), and that you are saying you created the "Roughhauser" account as a second account to "try again" to get the Michael Minns article back into Wikipedia. (Correct me if my assumption is wrong.) Whether you call this procedure "sockpuppetry" or not, this would not be considered acceptable by most Wikipedia editors. Thanks.

Regarding your other comments above, I suggest that you are straying off course, and I would again encourage you to concentrate on looking for previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that have commented about Michael Minns. Again, Michael Minns and lots of other people are quoted from time to time as experts in various media articles; that does not make those people "notable" for purposes of having a Wikipedia article about them.

And, for purposes of notability, we are not here to make our own determination as Wikipedia editors as to whether the cases in which Mr. Minns has participated are "historic" or "important" in the world of tax law. Let's even assume for the sake of argument that the cases were so significant as to be "historic": Now, see if you can find previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that show that Michael Minns himself is notable for purposes of Wikipedia.

And regarding your comments to editor Pgagnon999: "Just ask for whatever you [Pgagnon999] need and for god's sake, give me [Roughhauser] ample time to respond, like more than a single day or hour. Preventing the article from being recreated is totally censorship of the most vile kind, so I hope that is not what you are intending to try and do." [2] -- I am sensing desperation in your "voice" here. Please take a deep breath and relax. I don't think anyone is rushing you here. This is not a "speedy delete" process. I don't remember what the time frame is on a "regular delete", but I think the process has only just begun. And "preventing the article from being recreated" is not "vile censorship." You are overstating your case. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, noted that it is not speedy delete headed. That helps somewhat, though I hope I have enough of a chance to address. I am posting here what I had just tried to post...(SEE BELOW)

I don't think I have been anything less than civil thus far, have I, Pgangnon999? Can you show me anywhere I have not been civil? And since I am not a lawyer and I never said that anyone was in a "court of law"...I guess it doesn't matter what you think of my "rhetoric" since my speaking is no more "rehtoric" than is your own, right? Now, I have already proven my case on the notablility of this article, but more is repeated below. I let it rest unless anyone has a better or more specific question to put to me not already answered before. Why don't you call Minns directly to ask if he is me or I am him. Then call me and see what I say about it. My number is 713-454-9995. The content is all true and documented, otherwise I would never have posted it. This information is good enough for the New York Times and all the other major media, but not for Wikipedia? (some of these are already quoted IN THE ARTICLE and/or elsewhere in the IRS and Richard Hatch articles already on Wikipedia: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=michael+minns&srchst=nyt There are a ton of NYTimes stories there alone, click each of them if you want. Then do the same for Fox News. Then do the same for Associated Press and MSNBC. Lots of articles with his name in them tied to important/notable tax cases, and yes also to celebrities. That should only help, though, not hurt the argument for his being "notable".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=michael+minns&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D81630F930A15750C0A9629C8B63&scp=5&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257942,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-03-08-hatch-appeal_N.htm

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5557039.html

I am not a tax protester (though I think it's a very, very interesting idea), I am not Michael Minns (though I think he's very interesting figure), I am not asked by Michael Minns to write this article (though that might have paid well now that I consider it), why am I being treated as if I am assumed to be doing something under the rug? I've been asked for sources. Fair enough and I gave them. It seems that someone has a beef with Michael Minns thinking that he is a tax protester or something...he is a trial lawyer who is notable for his role in historic cases. He's notable for having represented celebrities. He's notable for having authored books with Ron Paul. He's notable for the way he is influencing the IRS and their legal tactics. He's notable for having authored work on the concept of "willfulness" as it pertains to such cases which has been published by a law journal (it's not that easy to get such things published no matter who you are).

Roughhauser (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Roughouser, your incivility is all over this page; to quote one of many examples, "please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here." This kind of insulting and combative rhetoric is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, you claim that I have been "deleting" your posts, which is clearly not the case, as anyone can see from my edit history. Please stop making accusations that have absolutely no merit. It also seems that you are attributing all the comments made here as belonging to me, which is not the case. Please note the signatures beneath the posts. As for this "how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue?" you evidentally are not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that all users (except those that are very new) are "qualified" to contribute here. These rants are not helping your case; please calm down, take a step back & reapproach with a cool head. As for your references above, I'll be glad to look them over when I have a chance; if they offer enough notability, I'll gladly replace my "delete" with "keep."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have refactored the above text to make it more obvious who said what and when. With indentation all over the place and signatures missing and/or duplicated before, I could not follow who said what and had to check against the edit history. I have not used leading bullets because they indent differently to other indents (and, with IE, all the indenting is different depending on whether you are viewing on-screen, print previewing or actually printing!) Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The aim of the discussion is to make succinct points which support keeping or deleting of the article. An administrator will make the final decision according to the Wikipedia policy, guided by the points made. I fear any such guidance will be lost in the noise above. Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment & Keep Roughhauser I've reviewed the references you provided above; the Mike Barnacle interview as well as the co-authorship of books with Ron Paul demonstrate, in my opinion, enough notability. A few pointers with regard to this mess left on Talk: Michael Minns.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that these references belong in the article but its author has indicated that he will not be doing it. Ros0709 (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the MSNBC Mike Barnicle debate between Michael Minns and an IRS spokeman (and former IRS Commissioner and Chief Counsel) Sheldon Cohen a relevant third party source? And didn't Pgagnon999 mention that same Mike Barnicle debate in the discussion just above? See a video of this debate on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Also, I will be happy to edit the article if if I am actually allowed to do so. If the end result is that the neutrality flag is left on the article until other users edit it and thus "cleanse" it, then so be it. Forgive me for not looking at the page for the past few days, but I have been a bit disappointed and feel a bit "set up" by the proceedings here, in general, thus far. I think some editors go WAY too far with their "duties" on this site, legitimate or otherwise... If the air is "cleared" I am happy to edit it further if neeeded. If so, would anyone make clear to me what is actually needed to make it more WikiKosher? Thanks... Roughhauser (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Dear Roughhauser: Notice editor Gtstricky's comment: "can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in." I haven't watch the entire debate between attorney Michael Minns and former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen that you linked (only the first few minutes), but the subject of the debate appears to be "incompetency, etc., at the Internal Revenue Service" and NOT Michael Minns himself. Further, I respectfully disagree with the opinion that editors here are going "way too far with their duties" here, and I would say that you should not feel that you have been "set up." A new editor cannot reasonably be expected to know all the Wikipedia rules when you begin to edit, but that does not mean that other editors will not enforce the policies and guidelines, even with a new editor. I encourage you to re-read the main policies, etc. Recognize that everything you and I write in Wikipedia is subject to being edited mercilessly by other editors -- all Wikipedia editors are essentially subject to the same restrictions. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:45, 4 March 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.