Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D Norton

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. There is a clear consensus that the sourcing isn't up to snuff and the tendency creeping in by a participant here to fling mud around suggest the light to noise ratio will not improve so lets just leave this here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael D Norton

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Michael D Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Individual does not meet notability guidelines and sources provided are not sufficient/reliable to establish said notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, improperly sourced and doesn't meet notability. Also seems to be biased/non-encyclopaedic. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Built almost entirely from primary sources written, spoken or published by the subject himself (WP:SELFPUB). Reads like a self-written WP:PROMOTION. Article doesn't demonstrate the subject would pass WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG, even if cleaned up. Platonk (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC). Update - Still undecided as to degree of notability, however I am withdrawing my 'delete' vote because I have no time today to further evaluate the article/subject and the article has been massively improved since I placed my original vote. Consider me 'neutral' at this point. Platonk (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Update#2 - I am placing my final vote at the bottom of this discussion. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - to the creator ArcticFox55: Today's new version of the article is much better and far more interesting to read. Suggestion, focus even more on Norton's businesses, products or services, and less on some of his personal struggles (ringworm?). See WP:WEIGHT for guidance there. I know it's an article under the person's name, but it will be the businesses and accomplishments that will help pass the notability bar. Reference section is much better. You may yet change my !vote. Platonk (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you SO much for the constructive criticism, Platonk, and not just throwing it away.

Extended content
I will take your feedback and immediately apply it the same exact way I did for JonnyDKeen's. Consider the ringworm part of it dropped. And I'll see what I can do to expand on the businesses.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like the creator of the article rewrote it so I say keep it because the biography of the person has some media attention. HelpingWorld (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your vote, HelpingWorld!

Extended content

There's some understandable doubt about the sources, but a lot of what they talk about we can verify for ourselves. For instance, the $200,000 Norton raised is publically tracked by Upwork.com. You can see it if you click here: https://www.upwork.com/fl/michaelnorton His social media following seems real. There's not a single post he makes that doesn't receive engagement from real people. Real people leave often leave comments about how they're inspired by him. I'm even here because of his social media presence. Today, he just released the presentation about his upcoming electromagnetic engine. Like I responded to JohnnyDKeen's helpful criticism on his page's talk: I believe Norton is worthy of being listed on Wikipedia because his accomplishments as an entrepreneurial scientist are having and will likely continue to have a very positive aspect on society. Judging from his trajectory as a growing public figure, I just wanted to be the first to cover him. It's not like in any of his claims he presents himself as a billionaire. And even though they're primary sources, it's quite difficult to fake his pictures. He's like a smaller and growing Elon Musk-like figure. But "smaller" doesn't mean "fake." And he is receiving an increasing amount of media attention. Out of my personal interest in Norton, my fear here is that we delete his page too hastily, not because he lied or did anything wrong but because I wrote the first draft of his article badly. And then next month this guy ends up getting coverage from something like Forbes. And then somebody else ends up writing his article after appealing after we sat here nitpicking like this :( when it's fair play in the rules that his current fame is not the determining factor of his noteworthiness. There are way worse articles on Wikipedia than his. I know this because I'm editing them. It's ironic: The TechTimes article lists him as "underrated." And that's exactly what we're doing: underrating him.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have the following comments regarding the statements:
  

Extended content

1. Does not meet notability guidelines: According to the Wikipedia page on notability (quote below), there’s a great degree of subjectivity in determining what is noteworthy and what is not. Michael D Norton has a growing social media presence. “Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.” There are several subcategories of notability worthiness, such as "Significant coverage -- addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” There is an article by LondonLovesBusiness (LLB) that fulfills this. The article referenced is about him, being more than a trivial mention. Being as though the entire article is about his life story with a moral for its target audience, this exceeds not needing to be the main topic of the source material. There are various articles like the one mentioned above that are included in the references. One of several in particular that is worthy of note in this discussion is the subject of this article's listing in TechTimes magazine. 2. On seeming biased/non-encyclopedic: I was not paid to write this article. However, I’ve seen other pages while editing articles on Wikipedia with merely a bias warning. If that which “seems” biased about the article is backed by a source that states that, is that still “bias”? At any time, other editors can come in to adjust the perceived bias. 3. On being improperly sourced: This seems easy to fix: What is the better way to source it? Is everything improperly sourced or just certain parts of the article? If there are items that should be removed for instance (such as to say that some things are properly sourced, while others are not), then why not simply discuss what those are and then improve the article, rather than resort to the extreme of deletion? I had reviewed information about social media (such as Facebook) not being reliable sources in most cases. Yet, if a person has a social media presence such as being an Instagram or YouTube personality, wouldn’t it be accurate to use social media for certain information such as their views or statements? I used Jordan Peterson’s page as an example to set up his and reviewed celebrities such as Ariana Grande. On Jordan Peterson’s page, there are broken links using the Wayback Machine references for his social media page that are broken. Yet, there don’t seem to be any penalizations for Dr. Peterson’s page. On Ariana Grande’s page there are references to social media to support statements on her political views. Both of these people are more famous than Michael D Norton. However, the notability guidelines state clearly that fame is not the determining factor for article worthiness.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 3:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note to creator, ArcticFox55: Youtube, Facebook, anything written by Norton are equally unacceptable as reliable sources. If you stripped out everything like that, it might be possible to better to evaluate whether or not the subject is notable. At this point, after clicking on a dozen citations and finding nothing written by someone else about Norton, I'm unwilling to dig further. Platonk (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Performing an edit accordingly.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 4:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:

All primary sources have been removed, and the article has been shortened to cover only that which was covered by a secondary source.

Extended content

It may read "like" self-promotion, but it is not. I take responsibility as a new Wikipedia article writer for the lack of experience. I know better now. However, I'd like to bring up Wikipedia's "Competence" rule for deleting posts (as a note to the closing admin): Platonk states clearly: "At this point, after clicking on a dozen citations and finding nothing written by someone else about Norton, I'm unwilling to dig further." You guys are more experienced than I am, but that still goes directly against that rule, what's openly admitted here in just not wanting to dig further with the sources. If you check the edit history of the page, just saying "sources" is not adequate enough for most people to fix it. In my opinion for the closing admin's consideration: It's needlessly hasty to nominate the entire page for deletion, especially if someone openly admits they don't feel like checking the sources, and especially if I'm new and still working on the article...which is also noted in the rules for nominating pages for deletion. The primary sources were only added to add depth to the secondary, because I've seen on multiple pages where that's been done without penalization.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 5:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, I've been taking a close look at the sources remaining on the article, to try and judge whether ArcticFox55 might have a point. Although there are a decent amount of sources provided, I think the problem is that none of them are in themselves particularly noteworthy or reliable. It sort of reminds me of the original Threatin page, which was packed with interviews, profiles and grandiose claims about this supposed mega-band, but none were really substantial and had in fact largely been planted by the subject's promo team. Not to say that's what's going on here, it just illustrates that any random news outlet isn't necessarily a credible source.

The sources given don't seem to be engaging in robust journalism, more promotion, or puff pieces. I'm not suggesting they're acting out of ulterior motives, but the articles report, at face value, a number of outlandish claims made by Norton as gospel. Perhaps everything he says in the profile is true, but the point is, there don't seem to be any checks on the veracity of what he's saying. The profiles in LondonlovesBusiness, Tech Company News and Vents magazine just don't cut it for me as reliable sources. While they might work to flesh out an existing article, they aren't enough on their own. If Norton is as notable as he seems to think, it will only be a matter of time before major, indisputably reliable sources give him some coverage, and then you'll have better grounds for proving notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to JonnyDKeen for the constructive criticism provided in a just manner. I've completely rewritten the article from scratch with your feedback in mind. Now, it's an entirely different article.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, along with the constructive criticism JonnyDKeen gave me on his page (besides here on this page's discussion), along with his words here: I agree. I understand his point of view. The only thing I can make a reference to, in contrast, is that no news source is "indisputable," no matter how popular or famous it is. While I agree that higher-level sources for Norton are inevitable, and I really appreciate JonnyDKeen's lack of dismissiveness, the rules state clearly that fame is not the determining factor for the validity of a subject's noteworthiness. This makes the nature of the current sources he doubts also subjective.

Maybe Norton is telling the truth on everything. Maybe he's not. That's not for us to determine, which is why secondary sources are critical for the article. Whether anyone respects the source is up to them, largely subjectively, unless there is solid evidence to justify why. A positive bias isn't good, but a negative one isn't either.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I was hoping he'd turn up in a few Gnews sources, nothing found. I get many hits on other "Michael D." people, nothing about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Four things to this (expand to read):

Extended content

Firstly, according to Google itself (their support page), Google News' (if that's what you mean by "Gnews") results are heavily determined based on your personal previous search history and preferences. Gnews itself is not a determining factor for the noteworthiness of an individual as the SERPs (search engine results pages) change per individual who fulfills the query. Secondly, Gnews shows timed results, regardless of your preferences. I'm pretty sure if you looked for new news on an invention from the 1800s, you're not going to find anything without difficulty...if anything at all. Yet, guaranteed, that hypothetical subject would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Thirdly, do you know how many people are on Wikipedia that don't show up on Google News? More people than probably you and I can count. What I do know is that how often a person is searched for is a determining variable. The search stats for Norton's page are 2-3 times higher than people like Russian singers and other noteworthy people who have an unchallenged Wikipedia page. I know this because those stats are in my edit history right now, and here's a screenshot: https://ibb.co/hBBgkm7 Fourthly, he shows up for me. Here's a link to a screenshot of an article posted about him 4 hours ago: https://ibb.co/bPYBqCc

ArcticFox55 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We're trying to find reliable sources for him, Google News is a quick way of checking coverage in the larger news sources; not so much that doesn't show up there, simply that he doesn't have media coverage. We're looking for mentions in reliable, larger sources, not anything and everything that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Totally understandable, however... (expand to read):

Extended content

...the Wikipedia search stats are what they are. That's just numbers (which are actually even higher now for the subject than they were in the initial screenshot). The subject is absolutely being searched. ...and Gnews is what it is, with its flaws. And the Wikipedia guidelines say what they say. While you are searching for larger, more reliable sources (which aren't really well-defined in this discussion)...can you specify what exactly is unreliable about the current sources as they're being published and I'm continually updating the page as they're released? Besides merely their size/fame? Specificity is key. TechTimes is a huge platform for its niche, with tons of search traffic. You can use Internet tools to verify the thousands of hits it gets every month. For instance, CNN is one of the largest news organizations in the world...yet heavily criticized for being unreliable and biased. They're huge, yet they are a running gag in multiple corners of the Internet. Elon Musk himself said on Twitter, quote "What I find most surprising is that CNN still exists" when they misreported on him. Yet, they are famous. I bet that's the type of source you're talking about, right? Furthermore, there are viral videos from huge weather stations of so-called credible reports literally faking how bad the wind was during a storm. None of that is reliable...even though their platforms are huge. And that's why (I respect) that the Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that one's fame (once again) is not the determining factor for their noteworthiness. Nor does it say anything about the fame or size of a source. It says "poorly sourced" or not sourced at all. ...only, the article is no longer poorly sourced. Even in last week's discussion, JonnyDKeem admitted that there was a "decent" amount of sources, and that was before I even added more before this discussion. And more sources seem to be published at a faster rate now. So, at first, the problem was with the way the article was written. That was my fault that I take full responsibility for, and have completely rewritten it. That's clear. The guidelines say I have the freedom to do that, and I took advantage of that. It's not self-promotional, so that allegation doesn't stick. You can take 30 seconds to check the subject's Facebook page to see how active and passionate his audience is. Multiple people are willing to write the article. It's not hard to believe. Almost all of his top fans write in paragraphs in his comments. I was just the first among them. One of his fans even bought him LAND in Scotland! (Can you believe that?) And if this article gets deleted, someone else from his fan base is probably going to write another one. Guaranteed. Because while he may not be noteworthy to you guys...he's noteworthy to his growing audience. He does self-promote with social media advertising, but that doesn't mean he's the one writing on Wikipedia. I merely talk to him and let him know what's going on. Beyond that, though? In the previous discussion of last week and this one...every single notion against the current sources has been subjective with a negative bias, no matter how peacefully or respectfully that bias was expressed. No one has said anything concrete about why what's presented is unreliable, only personal biased doubt against the subject. No, the subject is not mainstream (we agree), but he is absolutely noteworthy to a growing audience, and the Wikipedia numbers back that up. It's not just me. Look at the search numbers (such as in the screenshot) that are growing and faster than Wikipedia articles that are unchallenged. This discussion was relisted for, quote: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." So, I hate writing in paragraphs like this. I don't mean to be annoying. But that's what we're here for: a more thorough discussion. So, let's do that. Let's have a more thorough discussion. What is the actual, more objective problem with the subject having an article on wikipedia? What is an actual argument here besides your personal doubt in the subject? And why try so hard (twice even!) to keep this subject off of Wikipedia, when the article fits the guidelines, he's admittedly got a "decent amount of sources" while there are clearly unchallenged Wikipedia pages with barely a fraction of the search results, engaged social media audience, and lack as many references? ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: If you'd like to find news results quicker for Norton, it's better to type "Mike Norton" in the search engines, rather than "Michael D." I've listed it as an alternative name. ArcticFox55 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Which is totally against the Manual of style guideline for biographies. Here is what it says "'It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Example:
• Use: William Henry Gates III
• Avoid: William Henry "Bill" Gates III'"
  • • However Common name says we should use the name the person is most often called by. If that is Mike Norton, than this article should be called that. Of course we already have Mike Norton as an article, so this would have to be given a disambiguation. Also if D. stands for something I believe we should write it out when we do give the full name (see Rutherford B. Hayes, who the article opens by calling Rutherford Birchard Hayes, as just one of many examples).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment That's a nice try, but... (expand to read):

Extended content

That's a nice try, but it's not "totally against." That's hyperbole. Look at your own quote: "It is not always necessary..." It does not say anything like "It is absolutely banned..." or "Absolutely do not..." It says "It is not always necessary..." And even if it was, now the argument is just getting petty. He's unworthy because of a spelling? ...seriously? ...............seriously? C'mon. What's going on here is obvious. If you guys have some other motive or reason for why you just don't want the guy to be on Wikipedia...be so good as to own up to it. Don't resort to pedantic arguments now. The Wikipedia administration will save more face in the public eye. All of this is being screenshot. The guidelines warn us all about watching what we say in discussions like these. Once again, absolutely nothing stated here has anything to do with or addresses his search numbers, refutes his references, or even touches the subject's growing social media following. Also, now that I'm looking more closely: Even in your "avoid" example, that's not how I spelled his name. I didn't even use quotes like that. His actual name, if you even read the article, which it seems like you didn't if that's your argument...actually is Michael D P Norton. That's his full name. I didn't write the shorter style of it in quotes like that as per your avoid example. So, now that I'm looking more closely at this...what are you even referring to specifically? And ANOTHER point, quoting you: "Also if D. stands for something I believe we should write it out" Do you believe? Or do you know? Which is it? The longer this goes on, the sadder arguments against the subject are becoming. Grasping for straws. (And yes, the D does stand for something. You'd know that if you had actually read. So, you either read and are positioning your argument as if you hadn't, or you legitimately didn't read...in which case, the real question is not about the subject's worthiness for Wikipedia but the worthiness of your credibility to argue.)

93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Lambert edited what he said above, making my extended comment mismatch.93.114.202.147 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the cruft - any other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Happy holidays/Merry Xmas. The only other thing I have to add is that the subject's company made some new recent announcements. As new news articles circulate, there'll be even more references likely this week (I'll ask Norton to find out), which will boost the Wikipedia article even more. The guy's new, but that doesn't mean he's lied about anything. His audience is growing. And until there is actual evidence to verify that anything is untrue, it just doesn't make sense to assume that he is guilty before proven innocent. We should be better than that.

EDIT: Our personal views shouldn't be what determines who is noteworthy and who is not. We should just observe the evidence, and fairly, regardless of our personal feelings about him or what he's about. There is empirical, trackable evidence for the impact he's making. And the fact that you can't find counter-sources for the guy could mean that there is no basis for them to exist BECAUSE the story of the article is true. As much as he is dislikable or doubtable, there are pictures, sources/references, and search data on both Wikipedia itself and the articles that mention him. AND the money he's raised is verifiable through Upwork.com, which is a third-party. Therefore, there is way more evidence that would suggest that the subject is real, the story is real, and he's currently impacting an increasing number of lives. Doubt him, hate him or love him.93.114.202.147 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Wait a minute. I just found something in the guidelines that says how if there's no clear consensus...the article should be kept by default and that it is against the rules to continually nominate it for deletion.

This is the THIRD CONSECUTIVE TIME it's been relisted for deletion with no solid consesus. According to the guidelines...it should be kept.93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:Nevermind. It seems like you're (Specifically MissVain) ignoring your own rules. [link to an attack page redacted[

I don't know what this will lead to in the long-term considering that post and the comments. Good luck with your "consensus," and "thorough discussions" but personally know that I will still continue to edit articles besides this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify or delete - There is evidence that the subject may be notable (per Wikipedia guidelines of what is 'notable') but despite cleaning up the article and several other editors searching for evidence of notability, the article just isn't showing it. My recommendation is to draftify the article, have the creator spend some time working on other Wikipedia articles to get some experience of our policies, guidelines, standards and the community's way of doing things. If the subject truly is notable, then at some point there will be some coverage that clearly marks the subject as notable. At that point, submit the draft to AfC. And in case the close decision is to delete, the creator can always have kept a copy of the article code for later re-creation of the article when the subject becomes clearly notable. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello, Platonk. I don't think his noteworthiness was what started this. Even if he legitimately wasn't, it was telling him or me (creator of the article) to be ignored. That was a declarative command. With "cruft" adding insult to the injury. This isn't about the article anymore, and it's now out of my hands. I don't think it matters what you do with it now. ArcticFox55 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @ArcticFox55: The word 'cruft' above is likely referring to the vast tomes of text and debate that you've added to this AfD (not the article) which is uncommon and distracting. I hope you don't mind I reformatted your comment to the indenting style which we're used to seeing in discussions (as an example). See also WP:AFDFORMAT. Platonk (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per JonnyDKeen. There’s not enough reliable sourcing here to justify this article. Right now it seems to exist to elevate this individual. It can be recreated if more substantial and reliable publications cover him. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Hey, all...I don't take any of this personally. Yeah, I worked hard on the article, but like, I could just get more sources and reupload another one in the future. Meanwhile, of course...it would make sense that you'd try to rationalize away MissVain's insult and command. Even if it was the "essays" as you call them, that was still a blatant command to shut me up, when the guidelines state clearly that I'm allowed to defend the article. And the article is the story of an underrepresented minority. So, it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER at this point what you have to say to me or the verdict for the article at this point. But hey...keep talking to me as if I even matter at this point. I don't. Do what you will with the page. I don't even think HE cares anymore. I have no idea what he's got planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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.