Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James N. Farmer

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James N. Farmer[edit]

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

This person is not notable enough, and this page looks like blatant self promotion. Paleolithicus (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self promotion, I didn't create the page, but I will argue that I am relatively notable :) - here's a couple of recent articles in mainstream media featuring me!≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.188.56.140 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/smallbiz-tech/win-work-from-freelance-sites-20140804-3d46d.html

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/44263-are-you-being-ripped-off-on-website-development.html

Note – This was a malformed AfD nomination that was never transcluded to the AfD log page. As such, its time for discussion begins as of the time of this post. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the reliable third-party sources quoted in the article I believe this clearly passes the WP:N test. Does it require a re-write? Absolutely. But a re-write doesn't automatically imply a necessity for deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing coverage. It does look like self promotion. I don't think Perry Middlemiss's "third-party sources" would count as reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the sources are 6 to 10 years old and most of them are dead. The two recent links that the subject himself provided are reliable, mainstream sources that seem to indicate that he's moved on to the web development outsourcing business. That's confirmed by this, which is far from a reliable source and pretty hostile, but does suggest far-flung operations. Whether this kind of business rates an article, I doubt it. The role as founder of edublogs.org does – the world's largest network of education webblogs is significant. The problem is lack of reliable recent sources. I would trim this article down to a stub. One sentence on "founded edublogs.org", to the extent that it can be sourced from the 2006 article, and one sentence on the current web development business. If there are more reliable sources (an interview? I couldn't find one) that can indicate a continuing major role at "edublogs.org" that would help the article survive. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few industry articles does not notability make, IMO. These are standard articles about business practices, and both of the new ones are from websites, not mainstream news sources. Nothing tells me that this person stands out among the thousands of IT business people running small businesses. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the recent articles was the website of The Sydney Morning Herald. The 2006 article was from The Australian, which I believe is Australia's largest national newspaper. I think those two are enough for the two-sentence article that I suggested. He's linked in Edublog and The Edublog Awards, so if we delete this article those will become red links, inviting someone to create it again. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which sources would those be? - they don't seem to be in the article at the moment. Non-viable articles can easily be protected by admins from every being created, so that's not a reason to keep the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 2006 cite is the first footnote. Until yesterday it was a bot-generated link to 404 page archive, but I fixed it and now it displays an archived article from The Australian. The other one is the article that the subject himself mentioned above. I haven't been at this very long, so I'm still going on the policies in (WP:BEFORE), that editing should be considered first and that sources don't need to appear in the article. I mentioned the links in the other articles as evidence that someone considered him notable. If we decide that he isn't, it would seem that simply editing out the brackets in those articles would be less drastic than protecting the title. Wouldn't that leave us with red links to an article that can't be created? Anyway, has anyone else visited the edublogs.org website or read the Edublog and The Edublog Awards articles? After having done that, is he still not notable? – Margin1522 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Edublog link is not an excuse to keep this article. Part of the cleanup should be to remove links that are unlinked. There does seem to be a practice of creating links in order to justify separate articles, but this is not a "best practice." LaMona (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provide in-depth coverage of this person, and most don't appear to be RS anyway. This is self promotion at best and a poorly referenced BLP of a non-notable person at worst, and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, there's a lot of junk sources in there, but some of them, such as the article in The Australian which has Farmer as it's central topic, are above the level of blogs or industry pap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 27 December 2014 (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.