Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Formica

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 --JForget 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Formica[edit]

Michael J. Formica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm bringing this here on behalf of the subject who objects to the article. I'm somewhat neutral about whether or not the article meets the notability guidelines. I see no third party sources. Neutral TheRingess (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have declined speedy deletion several times despite the requests of an IP claiming to be the subject. Note however that even the briefest of Google searches (never the greast indicator, but..) indicates possible reference information. Pedro :  Chat  15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MJF jumping in here. Yes, I have a dense Web presence. Yes, there are links to some very legitimate sources of info both inside and outside the Wiki. My issue is that I did not ask that this be placed here, I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits it. Pedro, I understand your desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and its intentions/policies. But kindly to take into consideration my right to privacy. I'm a tiny presence in a big world, not a Ken Wilbur or a Dan Goleman. Were that I were! Thanks. --69.177.176.129 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI 69.177 (i.e. MJF). I have really worked hard here but I can't find any policy or precedence at WP:BLP or elsewhere for the subject to ask for total removal on these basis of not wanting it. Of course WP:BLP is very strict and if there is anything wrong or defamatory it can be removed without consultation. But the article looks balanced. If there is any invasion of privacy that can and must be removed but I can't really see any information that is not available on your website or elsewhere. I totally respect your right to privacy however. If someone could show me a policy indicating why I should delete I will, but as an administrator I can't justify speedy deletion of this article. Pedro :  Chat  16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Pedro. I am not an admin, but I know of no policy that allows a single user to completely delete an article without following a process. In my opinion, if there were, the project would fail. Looking at the history, the article was created on October 19 of this year, by someone registered as ArtfulDiva (you can find this information by clicking on the history tab). If this person is an acquaintance, it's unfortunate that they did not ask you before creating the article. I too see nothing that is objectionable, nor any information that is not readily available through a google search, so I can see no privacy violations. Yes, anyone can edit the article, but their edits must conform to the core content policies of Wikipedia, which are in place to guarantee accuracy and verifiability and to safeguard subjects' rights. Often discussions of this type revolve around whether or not the subject meets the guidelines for notability established by the community at large. Pedro has included links to those guidelines and you might be able to make a stronger case by reading them and seeing if they apply to the article. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a policy asking us to take the wishes of the subject into account. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards. That is not an absolute, and has to be weighed against the subject's notability otherwise - if Michael Moore or Brittany Spears were to ask us to delete their articles, we would have to politely turn them down - but in this case, I don't see anything in this article that clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (persons) anyway. He was associated with a lot of people and developed a program that was used by a state, but I don't see anywhere that he personally was the subject of detailed articles, won major awards, or anything similar. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go...Thanks Mouse. MJF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion usually takes about a week, and other people will weigh in too. Who knows, maybe you're hiding a Nobel Prize you won somewhere? :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish. I'm nobody special. The part that creeps me out is that the author might be a patient or former patient...read:stalker. Been there, done that...very unpleasant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The policy seems pretty clear that when the notability is gray that the subject of the article gets a nod - which seems right and reasonable. Cheers, Ryo 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on notability only. Although there is information on him (his entire CV) online, if he was notable he would have no grounds to even request deletion as there would be so much information available that it would seem futile to remove it from one source such as here. Gtstricky 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pleased that this AfD is going this way, and trust the community understand why I would not delete via the WP:CSD process. As I am involved I will not close and delete, and if the closing admin has any queries I will respond, of course. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though without prejudice to recreation if significant third-party sources exist. The current article provides two pretty marginal references that obliquely refer to things he's done, but aren't really about him. Some quick searching turns up his name a lot but no particularly good references on his biography—no biopics in a newspaper or a book or anything of that sort—so I'd lean towards deleting as per his wishes, for now anyway. --Delirium 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Though not without possibilities appears to fall short of WP:BIO. Key claims are watered down by "contributed to" etc., and many career steps are "worked with X". Notability isn't transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The objection is that the subject wants to control his own article, and actually says that we dare not write an article without his permission. Totally wrong, and letting people do this destroys the encyclopedia. The course is to write a proper article, since there seem to be sources. Could be done now, or after this astoundingly weak article is deleted. But either way, we need a clear statement that we do not accept that it is necessary or even preferable to consult the subject before writing an article. In fact, I'd regard doing so as clear COI. We work from public material. Perhaps we should incorporate "My issue is that I did not ask that this be placed here, I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits" in the BLP policy as the sort of thing that does NOT justify deletion. DGG (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the purpose of this comment? Your user page smacks of narcissism, and the fact that you are an MLS only confirms, as an academician, my opinion of MLSs.
You think the article is crap. I don't want it here. Instead of going on the attack (read:defensive, to push your own agenda), why not just agree that it does not belong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first, I would like to apologize to DGG, as my comments were harsh, unprofessional and uncalled for. Long day, glass of wine, and a general sense of frustration. I took his words personally, and should not have. Secondly, I would like to say that I am pleased with the manner with which the community is, ultimately, handling this situation. I feel confident in the consensus that this bio is non-notable, although am admittedly flattered that some of you would think it may merit future inclusion. You are most gracious in that. Finally, what in the world is a snowball closure? Sounds ominous! Cheers... MJF @ --69.182.28.205 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (PS...sorry the IP keeps changing; it's dynamic, and it keeps dropping.)[reply]
apology accepted. And one one point I agree with you-- even if you are notable, it is not as an academic. DGG (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply A "snowball close" refers to WP:SNOW. In this case Malcolmx15 is saying that as no-one has come up with an argument for keeping the article there is no point continuing this process as there can only be one out-come (deletion). I've no objection to another amdin closing this as SNOW and deleting the article, but I can't (wont) due to my involvement in it. Pedro :  Chat  14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Snow This has too much discussion on various points to be a snow close. Others may have something useful to add, so it should run it's time..DGG (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite, not because of, the subject's wishes. The article fails its notability check. That said, I wish to concur with DGG's concerns. Wikipedia is not censored!. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that this is in fact the subject of the article (and I've seen no proof of that), the subject has no privileged position; and concerns like "I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits" show a misunderstanding of or hostility to the principles under which we operate. --Orange Mike 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newbies will not necessarially understand polices Mike. Pedro :  Chat  23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - I readily acknowledge the justice of what you say. But by the same token, their input may not be as solidly grounded as that of more experienced editors. --Orange Mike 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But try to remember we were all new once. Pedro :  Chat 
  • Comment The article seems to be going away, but isn't the procedure for a person objecting to an article about self to contact the Foundation with their bonfida's? The point of editing wikipedia anonymously is that one is anonymous! Although we can assume that the person behind the ip requesting deletion is that person, we have no proof. I don't know how to contact the foundation/head office these days and will have to look up the info when I'm not using my employer's computer. At any rate, I would ask Dr. Fromica to contact the Foundation as well, just so we know what we are doing. (You don't have to be new to not recall some of our murkier protocols.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me up. Number is on the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.109 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I don't think that's needed: anyone can suggest pages for deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_J._Formica&oldid=1165993926"