Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)

Michael J. Miller (corporate executive) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: "Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)"news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. The single source in the article gives no assertion of notability, and is nothing more than a very brief mention of a name and position in a "who works for this magazine" section, meaning that this source is not independent of the subject. SudoGhost 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: I would say that he is a notable individual, being editor-in-chief of PC Magazine. Granted, it's presumed notability, since a search for him turns-up a lot of primary source material from PC Magazine, because he was the editor-in-cheif. But, he is a significant figure in technology publishing, with a long career. Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Having a position at a company isn't notable by itself, and he cannot be called a "significant figure" if there's not a single independent reliable source that can show this. This individual fails WP:BASIC, and an article can only be presumed to have notability if it meets WP:GNG, this one does not. - SudoGhost 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Having a position in a company would be notable if he is responsible for the creative vision of the product created by the company. Since this individual is basically a journalist, I point you toward WP:ARTIST, which covers editors-in-cheif of a journalistic publication. I think this covers him along with presumed notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:ARTIST would still require independent reliable sources demonstrating that one or more of the criteria are met. The article needs independent sources, anything short of that fails WP:N: if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. - SudoGhost 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines, 'guidelines' being the key word. I've spent a rather long time searching for any sources other than primary sources, and I'm rather surprised I'm not finding any. Furthermore, I seem to recall that I voted to delete an article about a woman who was once editor-in-cheif of the NYT, a much more notable publication. I may have let my bias affect me here. So, I'm changing my mind. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • delete per discussion above. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete this is the second time, I felt like a person who was important by his title, failed WP:N based on GNG. I think PC Magazine editor in chief is a notable person. I am in shock that he fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep I just found a result behind a paywall at that says "PC Magazine's Editor-in-Chief Michael J. Miller and eWEEK's Editor-in-Chief Eric Lundquist earned honors as the top overall media influencers. " according to PR Newswire - Jun 6, 2002. That is about all I need to support given his title.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
PR Newswire has been discussed on WP:RSN multiple times, and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source for establishing any notability. Press releases are not independent, and not reliable. - SudoGhost 20:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think pretty much anyone can do a press release in PR Newswire, kind of like vanity publishing. FWIW, the best secondary reference I could find is that apparently Mr Miller is in the Northwestern University journalism school hall of fame. Roodog2k (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - editor-in-chief of a big enough magazine. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not based in any policy or guideline, and the lack of reliable sources suggest it isn't "big enough". Articles require third-party sources; this one has none. - SudoGhost 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Refbombing isn't going to give notability to the article. Those links are either not about the subject (failing significant coverage), primary sources, press releases or in other ways not sufficient to establish any notability. - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you read these links, or just paste Google results that showed the name? This one isn't in any way about the subject, but the name just happens to be listed on the side as a host of an non-independent event. That gives no notability. - SudoGhost 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No I didn't read all of them word for word. But yes, I assessed them. If you check the order they appear within Google's search results you'll probably note that I pasted them here in a different order (one which I felt to be more useful). Is there a policy which refers to refbombing? And had you seen all of those refs before, during your search per WP:BEFORE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talkcontribs) 06:04, 22 June 2012‎
Using different search terms will yield then in different orders, but the order of the refs aren't relevant. You didn't read the references that you use to assert notability? You assessed this press release from PR Newswire as an independent source? Or this one where the author says "I worked with Michael in 1988 when he was my boss at InfoWorld" as independent of the article's subject? In what way do these links satisfy WP:BASIC, when they aren't even independent of the subject? Why would you list a company bio to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument when WP:BASIC requires a source to be independent of the subject?
WP:REFBOMB is an essay, not a policy. However, that doesn't mean it isn't relevant; quality is infinitely more important than quantity. Of the links you provided, not a single one is a third-party reliable source that's independent of the article's subject, and because of that none of them demonstrate any notability. - SudoGhost 07:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. REFBOMB is included in {{Essays on building Wikipedia}} under the 'Inclusion' section rather than 'Deletion'. It's referring to article space, not deletion discussions, where multiple references are often listed by editors who are trying to demonstrate notability without necessarily having the time to edit the articles themselves.
  2. I'm not suggesting bunging all of the above refs into the article in one place, just after his name or something. I note <span id="FormattingError" />Template:Tq is only for quoting in talk and project pages. Do not use it in actual articles.</noinclude>
  3. I'll examine the sources in more detail here if I find the time, if no one else does it before me, and if the discussion is not closed beforehand. I count just 4 of the 12 refs which you specifically claim are unsuitable.
-- Trevj (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No, they are all unsuitable as third-party reliable sources, the four I specifically mentioned are just the random examples that unambiguously fail to support a "per WP:BASIC" argument because, they are in no way independent, which kind of undermines your reasoning. - SudoGhost 08:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Notability must be established, saying he's notable doesn't make him notable. - SudoGhost 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Michael J. Miller (corporate executive), that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): SudoGhost Search for "Articles for deletion/Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Articles for deletion/Michael J. Miller (corporate executive)"

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.