Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Magee (journalist) (3rd nomination)

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 Keep. The previous two AfDs are both suspect. Stubification has also softened the POV concerns. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magee (journalist)

This is a recreation of a deleted article. I originally nominated it for deletion with the following reasons: "This is a biography of a living person, yet there are no reliable third party sources cited whatsoever. I don't believe such sources exist, so this article will always be in violation of WP:BLP." The sourcing for the new attempt is no better than it was before. Many biographical details have no supporting sources whatsoever. The article should be redeleted and salted to prevent re-creation. GlassFET 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you can see I've deleted the vast majority of the article as it existed when GlassFET nominated it (including basically all of the biographical details) which were, as GlassFET pointed out, completely unsourced. I think this actually makes it easier to decide whether we ought to delete this or not as we can focus solely on the notability of the subject and not all of the occult stuff added in without sources. Clearly there are now no WP:BLP violations so that is no longer a valid reason for deletion. If someone can provide sources for the stuff I deleted obviously it could be added back in, though I think we should see if it survives AfD first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. No sources, violates WP:BLP, already deleted through AfD once. Heavy on the salt, please. Realkyhick 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Maybe I'm missing something, but as the creator of two tech web sites about which we have articles it would be seem this guy is worthy of a short article. I only support a keep if essentially all of the article is deleted except the lead. He also was named one of the 100 most influential people in England in terms of e-commerce (or something) in the list here (which is cited in the article) though I don't know if being recognized by e-consultancy.com means much (it seems that a lot of people weighed in on the list of 100 people though). Anyhow, Magee seems to pass notability so I think it's worth deleting most of the content here and then keeping it, though I could be persuaded otherwise. I don't think salting makes much sense since he is clearly on the cusp of notability at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm changing my vote, I think Magee is notable enough for a stub at the least. Any new material added in needs obviously to be sourced though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- E ddie 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Bigtimepeace. Not meaning to stoop to the Pokemon defense, but if articles on material he has created exist, I think it's reasonable to keep his entry. --Milton 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am as puzzled as Bigtimepeace. The details are obviously way excessive, but the career as described is notable--the two publications certainly are. Being editor of a significant publication is a major factor in notability. There are even RSs, though I'm not sure how much of the article they in fact support. The section on the Occult certainly can't stand without sources. DGG 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Notability is not inheritable, so other articles about things he created already exist and so no reason for this article. It was already deleted once, it should not be recreated in defiance of our policies. If people feel strongly about it, they should go to the deletion review section and not encourage such defiance. DreamGuy 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were only 2 votes for the previous deletion which I contend cannot really demonstrate a consensus - especially after a previous keep consensus. Subject is notable. The previous deletion of this article managed to get into the top stories of a Google News search (admittedly because the subject wrote an article about it but I think that just proves the notability...). Citizensmith 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also in the first AfD, when many participated as opposed to three people in the second one, the result was overwhelmingly keep. The main reason cited for delete in the last one was lack of reliable sources. As I read them, the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion allow a new version of an old article to be re-created if the problem with the old one was lack of content or bad content. I don't think the stub version that I (drastically) pared this article down to has the same problem the long version does--i.e. it is adequately sourced since it makes very limited claims about the subject. In sum I don't think this article as it now stands defies the previous AfD and thus should not be deleted out of hand, but rather only if we decide the subject does not pass WP:BIO.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted "weak delete" last time because although I thought he had a claim to notability, we were pretty close to 100% primary sources and I was unable to find any additional significant secondary sources. I'm amenable to a stub based on the notability of founding two major publications, but I see the sourcing issue as an ongoing problem with this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable work with The Reg and The INQ. —Ashley Y 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bigtimepeace. Kreca 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable journalist, probably one of top ten IT-journalists worldwide. Article needs expanding and better sourcing, though. DLX 17:07, 5 July 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.