Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Maloney

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maloney

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account however it has been speedy deleted 3 times previously and this is just a continuation of a multi-year history of "Mike Maloney" promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Mike_Maloney_promotion. I've searched for sources and have attempted to clean this up, but nothing notable comes up. Has links but they seem to be press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from primary and non reliable secondary sources. Seems to be nothing more than a vanity article for Self-promotion and push a non-notable book. Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mike Maloney is a public figure who has put himself out in the public spotlight as an author and public speaker in numerous industry conferences and financial television programs. I strongly disagree that this fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO for these reasons. I also disagree that this page is promotional, but because this area has room for interpretation, I agree that it is important to edit for neutrality. El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nominator, vanity article. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking at those sources I'd say he fails WP:GNG; I believe he exists but I don't see why he is notable. Plus vanity advert created by SPA which has now been banned, and multiple deletions over the years. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of this page has been deleted prior to it's nomination. I believe the sweeping deletions were overly aggressive and leaves a page that is incomplete and therefore appears to not be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Dorado Adventurer (talk • contribs)

- reply - the content that was purged was not up to Wikipedia standards: YouTube links, boasts by the subject himself, and meaningless fluff; plus a claim for notability-by-association in defiance of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable goldbug, wrote a non-notable book, has non-notable businesses and website(s), speaks at goldbug conferences; fails our standards as notable author, investor, or internet figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I find these derogatory comments deeply concerning. It appears that User:Organgemike is offended by what he calls a "goldbug" and everything about the industry. This kind of censorship is exactly what wikipedia endeavors to overcome. When considering whether to keep or delete, please try to refrain from derogatory language.El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my use of the jocular term "goldbug" offended you, Adventurer: most of the hard-money fans I know like the term, and it's used in publications like Barron's all the time. As to the rest: I don't have to tell you that there are a lot of shills, promoters and egotrippers in this segment of the financial trade; and the history of this article seems to indicate that Maloney is among them. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. This helps me understand the perspective being taken which I hope to translate into better edits in general. I appreciate the clarification El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real independent sources. The first ref is to an article at the "International Business Times" which is solely a cut&paste from the publisher's page; no other content is presented. Second source is subject's site. Third source is pretty random, but does not seem to support the "one of five permanent exhibits" claim; our own material claims "permanent collection of over 4.5 million objects". The fourth reference is to a vanity press, self-published book. Need better sources for a COI article on a non-notable or marginally notable author. Kuru (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the responses and criticisms of this entry, would it be possible to allow more time to make appropriate edits? I do believe that this entry deserves to exist but would benefit from more attentive editing rather than deletion. Thoughts? El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last a minimum of seven days; more than enough time to find existing sources that meet our guidelines. If you need time after that, I'm sure a copy of the article can be moved into a "sandbox" in your userspace and you can work on it there. I'm afraid that I was unable to locate anything that was reliable; mostly just cross-selling in other "get rich" books and a ton of SEO. The author's name is surprisingly common, though, so I may have missed some things as I tightened searches. Kuru (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ARTIST #4, the exhibition/permanent collection in the Victoria & Albert Museum of the Amplification system is about half way to notability. If there are other major museums that have the Amplification system it could increase notability further. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:BIO and WP:RS and WP:GNG and a bunch of other stuff. Qworty (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as lacking reliable sources with in depth coverage as per the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.