Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Neff

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. --Coredesat 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Neff

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

Largely autobiographical article. I started on this by cleaning up puff/CV type stuff, multiple links to subject's website, and the like. While the number of "sources" may appear impressive, they are either primary or mention the subject's name (that at best, I removed several sources which did not mention the subject whatsoever). Also nominating Michael B. Neff, a redirect to this page. Seraphimblade 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• IF any one of you had a notion of the value and prestige of Poets and Writers in the literary world, you would understand. As it stands, pearls before swine. Delete and have done with this self-serving hen fest ... Oh, and btw, your illogic that argues WebdelSol.Com is worthy of comment but I'm not is like saying (hyperbole to make a point) J.C. Penny isn't worthy of comment but the chain stores are. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter. Fire away!

• A cursory examination of the comments left by "Seraphimblade" in the article history will demonstrate the extent of bias the reviewer brings to the process. He makes outright false statements, e.g., pretends not to see that an article about the subject in question even mentions his name (Poets and Writers article or New York Times) then fails to admit what the subject is known best for, WebdelSol.Com, is even relevant. Links to other sources would show the subject as editor (on masthead, e.g.) but reviewer fails to see this. Solneffmike 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without actual reliable sources (from independent third parties) attesting to actual accomplishments. And playing the paranoia card never works, Michael. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• No paranoia, Mr. Copy Editor, just facts. You're intentionally failing to recognize the New York Times and Poets and Writers," etc. as "actual reliable sources", therefore, playing the ignorance card works for you. But in fact, you are not ignorant, you know better. What we have here, ostensibly, is an act of hostility. You and yours have been insulting and unprofessional right from the beginning. Like good cops, you'll never admit you are wrong, only dig in and continue to accuse regardless of contrary evidence. Just take the page off and be done with these immature mocking games. Solneffmike 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • No paranoia...just facts. You're intentionally failing...But in fact, you are not ignorant, you know better... Boy, assertion and contradiction: t'ain't often you see them occurring that close together. Those mindreading courses working out for you?
  • Again, the name-dropping and logrolling doesn't help: "multiple non-trivial coverage of the subject" counts: that subject should be you, not any of your enterprises or the category you're working in.
  • Like good cops, you'll never admit you are wrong, only dig in and continue to accuse regardless of contrary evidence. That doesn't sound like the act of "good cops", but never mind, Mr. Kettle, I have a call for you on line 4 from Mr Pot: he says you're black. --Calton | Talk 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't understand how the author of this article about himself, who is arguing about the deletion of this article he wrote himself about himself, can reasonably talk about anyone else being biased. If you look at User talk:Solneffmike as well as User talk:Calton, you'll see that despite multiple clearly understandable attempts to explain basic wikipedia concepts like WP:COI and WP:VANITY, the author seems unable or unwilling to learn about editing. Instead, he defends himself with bizarre and unfounded mentions of other people he knows who advertise here, but whom he refuses to name in some attempt at attaining moral high ground (despite the fact that he is the only one who keeps bringing it up). More seriously, he asked Calton what his name is in real life ([1]) in what I interpret to be a potentially threatening tone, which, while possibly harmless, I don't feel is ever acceptable. He also blanked the page in an attempt to "delete" it, which he has no power to do. All of this indicates a trend toward behavior that is disruptive and an unwillingness to just sit back and listen to people who have thousands more edits than him. I like to assume good faith and not be mean to newcomers, but you can't walk into a new situation and start telling everybody right and wrong. So, delete as vanity. --Tractorkingsfan 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Week Keep despite obvious conflict of interest in creation. It needs better independant sources (the only real one is the NY Times thing which is clearly not about the subject of the article) but there is a clear and convincing assertion of notability and sources could probably be found. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - For an article about Michael Neff, it has too little about him and too much about his website, which raises concerns of attempts at self-promotion (WP:NOT). Most of the references talk about the website and not the person so what are they doing here?. What's the article about? if the website itself is notable, the article should focus on that, and be moved/renamed. If enough sourceable information can be found about Michael and the article is significantly revamped and refocused, it might make the cut. Right now it doesn't. Also, Solneffmike certainly sounds like Michael Neff himself; his history indicates he has contributed mostly (all but 2 of his contribs) to Michael Neff and stuff re: edits to the article and this AfD. This should be taken into account as, if the user in question is indeed Michael Neff, it would be a case of conflict of interest.Roadmr (t|c) 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You need an assertion of notability to not be speedy deleted, but actual notability to survive AfD. As Neff hasn't been the subject of multiple, reliable independent sources, the article should be deleted. JChap2007 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to me that we are mixing two subject matters here with this article. Mike Neff himself does not appear to pass WP:BIO as there are no reliable independent articles about him as primary subject. More numerous and more prominent hits are about Mike Neff, the hockey player or motor-racing crew chief, or Darts player. There are a number which point to his own website(s), the main one of which which appear to be linked to other authors' websites in a quid pro quo. However, we are not here to determine the notability of his website. Therefore, references thereto do not count. In any event, for Mr Neff and webdelsol.com, total independence renders it but a self-reference. Among the relevant Ghits, there one from this site, where the zine he publishes interviews him! From an early version of the article by the creator, there appears to be some criticism about the two (refer to the original version.... However, the source may not qualify as reliable. Ohconfucius 04:23, 12 February 2007 (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.