Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Frederick Marcotte

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. Even though there is a slight 'numerical advantage' for the keep !votes (4 keep, 2 delete + nomination statement), the arguments on the delete side are more convincing. The first two keep !votes offer nothing by way of policy-based argumentation. The first delete !vote by Megtetg34 argues cogently for the weakness of the sources used in the article. The third !keep vote is incomprehensible, while the final one insists on the subject's awards as a sign of notability. However, WP:ANYBIO is normally interpreted so as to demand very well-known (read: notable) awards; this was not the case here. On balance, no strong arguments have been presented by the keep side and Megtetg34's analysis was not successfully challenged. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frederick Marcotte[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Businessman does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL events for a person in this role. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With due respect, I don't understand your problem here. First you proposed it for deletion that was countered by someone then you had issues with award verification which was then addressed. I saw your profile and appreciate your time here but seeing your edits I concluded that you are habitual in removing pages on Wikipedia, there are 10000s of pages on Wikipedia that require attention from someone knowledgeable like you but you are only busy removing pages, this won't benefit you in any way I believe. It would be great for the whole world if you fix problems on Wikipedia and find sources and fact check on pages with maintenance tags. Secondly, you mentioned WP:NBIO, did you had a look what that reads? People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. So, based on this statement I see no problem and he won awards as well. Don't hate me for what I said but I guess we are here to help Wikipedia to be a better place irrespective of personal issues and grudges. Thank you. Anaya Levine (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I de-proded the article when I was landed there and saw some more references/edits afterwards. I believe the subject is notable based on the awards and sources that are independent. Samantha Mont (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less comment on editors, more policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic does not have enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion. Source 1 is a very brief interview posted to a consulting agency website, it's not a news outlet. Source 2 is the topic talking on a non-notable podcast. Source 3 doesn't exist. Source 4 does count towards establishing the topic's general notability. Source 5 is a trivial mention at the bottom of the page, it's not an article, nor is it a news source. Source 6 is another article from bizjournals.com. The problem with this source, and as it pertains to 4, 8 and 12 is that it's all from the same media outlet. The sources as a collective may count as 1 source towards establishing GNG. For example, a subject can have 100 New York Times articles about them. It's still not enough to establish GNG if there are no other reliable sources covering the topic. The topic must have SIGCOV in multiple (WP:3REFS) RS. Source 7 is a press release. Source 8 I just explained in Source 6. Source 9 is a paid article in Forbes, says it right at the top of the page. Source 10 is a trivial mention naming him as an employee of the company. Source 11, he has a trivial quote half way down the article. It's not SIGCOV. Source 12, I addressed in source 6. Source 13 is a link to a Flickr photo with his name on it. It does not say NASA on it, yet it is cited in the article that he received awards from NASA. It is a blank picture, with his name on it. There is nothing online, or in any other sources about the topic receiving any such awards from NASA. This article significantly lacks sources as it pertains to our notability guidelines for inclusion, and reads like a resume builder with no way to verify many of its claims. The topic, in its current state, does not belong in Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we see regionally it's WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK.Kite (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in agreement with Megtetg34's above analysis of the sources. I'd also like to see a couple of in-depth profiles. To dissect further, I know there's a guideline Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, but I sometimes disagree with its interpretation - if someone is the CEO of a notable company, I think that absolutely helps with notability. In this case, none of the companies he founded or led seem to be considered notable enough for their own articles. His CTO role at Echostar seems the most newsworthy item here, and if I were editing that article I wouldn't even think to put info about him there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment As per my analysis, Wikipedia is of sources and sources, awards and positions make people notable. bizjournals, Colorado Technology Association, Colorado Springs Gazette, Forbes are all notable especially awards see WP:ANYBIO and they are cited as well. Yes not from a source itself but the docs seems legit. Marc TW (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes articles is a paid article and therefore it is not eligible to establish notability. Further - there is no reports/evidence of any of the awards cited anywhere. If you have any additional sources, please post them here. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2022 (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.