Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael B. Glenn

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 but no objection to userfication. First on the plus side for this article, user MelanieN is mistaken to argue that articles copied verbatim in other newspapers cannot count towards notability. For the purposes of verifiability duplicate articles are effectively from the same source. This would be significant if the factual accuracy of the article was being challenged but I don't think anyone here is disputing the basic facts of Glenn's use of bitcoins. We are concerned instead at this AfD with the notability of the subject. Notability is measured on Wikipedia by whether reliable sources have discussed the subject. The fact that these papers have published a piece on Glenn means that they consider the story notable—they have noted it. It is irrelevant that they have copied it from somewhere else, as long as the paper is independent of the original source. So far, it sounds like I should be closing keep but the WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS arguments still stand with regard to the bitcoins story and everything else is only local notability at best which is not enough for an article per WP:POLITICIAN. If it could be shown that there was at least one other issue for which Glenn has had national coverage then I would consider undeleting. I am also happy to userfy the article for Dogtimecat on request if they wish to work on improving it before returning it to mainspace. One more piece of advice to Dogtimecat, you seem to have got the impression that you wrote too much in the article. That is not a problem (except where you stray from just giving the encyclopaedic facts into presenting a point of view) as far as this AFD debate is concerned. We are only concerned here with whether the article should exist at all, and as I say, that is judged against our notability criteria. Spinning Spark 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Glenn[edit]

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

Not notable. Reads like a puff-piece. Being a candidate in an election is not notable in itself. Shritwod (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with the characterization of this as a "puff piece". I do not see that Glenn has made any contribution to politics in any real way. This seems like a promotional piece for his city council bid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDX er1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created most of this content as a local to the area who follows politics. This person is notable and was originally added due to his acceptance of Bitcoin in politics regardless of FEC/FPPC approval. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so if I have expanded this beyond levels of appropriateness, please feel free to remove what is not needed. This is a big name in our area, though, and more importantly: nationally relevant (and covered in news) in the realm of digital currency, by LATimes, Chicago Tribune, OC Register, Daily Pilot, and Orlando Sentinel, among many others. I vote for it not to be deleted, but am open to modification, if needed. Preceding comment added by Dogtimecat (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Dogtimecat, can I enquire if you have a conflict of interest (COI) here? I can see four sets of edits Dogtimecat, Catwagdog, 198.72.183.219, 107.184.30.220 all of which seem to be more-or-less single-use accounts that are just used for editing this article and some related ones. The page creator Flaviohmg has already been flagged as having a potential COI inasmuch as they may have been paid to create the article. Of course, you can edit articles where you have a potential COI but care needs to be taken to avoid an impression of impropriety. Shritwod (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. Both of those IPs are mine, and they correspond with the accounts. One is mobile (catwagdog) and one is PC (Dogtimecat). I do not know the creator of this article nor can I attest as to why he created the article, but I do believe that the national (and international) coverage alone makes the subject newsworthy on at least one front. I am supportive of this person as a candidate but have no direct relationship to him. He has enthused a great number of people in the community (including myself) and when I saw the Wikipedia page, I wanted to contribute. It sounds like I may have over-contributed(?), and if that is the case, I am okay with removing the sections that are inappropriate, but believe that the article should reflect the nationally and internationally syndicated noteworthiness even if I have added things that may not be of interest to people as a whole (as they admittedly relate more to his local issues or him personally). It was my intent to contribute to the knowledgebase about this person and I had not considered the possibility of over-contributing as being problematic until now. Dogtimecat (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. So, I'm a little confused by this statement because the image of Michael B Glenn says that it is your own work. But I notice that the exact same image appears in a much smaller form on the glenn2014.com and also on Mr Glenn's Facebook page and Twitter account. If that photo is your own work, then how did it end up on Mr Glenn's sites if you don't have a relationship with him? Shritwod (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I just uploaded the image, I struggled with the process and I am new here and not quite sure the process of image uploading, and it sounds like I improperly categorized it and/or attributed it. I did not take the photo, and it is not my own work. I requested the photo image from Glenn via Facebook and asked if I could use it here. He supplied me with a higher resolution photo and I am not sure which one I used. To answer the inevitable: That is the only time I have "interacted" with him (four messages), and I would not consider this a relationship or a conflict of interest. No, I was not paid for this. Yes, my message to him was unsolicited. To be fair, though: I am not sure how the Wikipedia TOS explicitly views it. Do I have a COI? If there is a photo problem, I can either paste his approval message in there or remove it-- whichever is more appropriate. My apologies for the hub-bub around this.Dogtimecat (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be confusing, there are a lot of them! I wasn't suggesting that you were paid to edit the article either, just that the original article may have been created in that way. The WP:COI policy is the best place to start if you want to avoid conflicts of interest while editing. Also, we need to fix the copyright information on the photograph because the copyright remains with Mr Glenn himself and has to be licensed by him (and not a third party). I'm not an expert in fixing that kind of issue though. Shritwod (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will correct: Thanks Shritwod, I will figure out how to correct this within the next 48 hours, if that is acceptable! Dogtimecat (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected: I figured out how to correct the image attribution-- done! Dogtimecat (talk) 5:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Followup. I noticed this was caught up in a purge from the original creators works, which I guess would explain all the attention.Dogtimecat (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for local city council. His only claim to notability is his acceptance of bitcoins as campaign donations. However, after I trimmed the duplicate references, the "national headlines" amount to a single story from the LA Times and its subsidiary the Daily Pilot, which was reprinted verbatim in the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel. This is a single source, not the multiple sources required for notability. This is basically One Event-type "notability" for an obscure candidate for local office. The article is also hopelessly POV; I trimmed some of the obvious stuff like "freedom activist," but I couldn't do much about the argument that he is running to prevent Socialism from taking root in Newport Beach, or the poorly-cited hysteria about the California Coastal Commission seizing control of local beaches. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 4 April 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.