Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Snow (attorney) (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 DELETE. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow (attorney)[edit]

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

With all due respect to the subject, who is doing tremendous job for our community, I totally agree with the rationale for the 2nd nomination by User:Scott Martin: "This attorney who was chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a short period does not pass the requirements of WP:GNG. Even the best source given in the article, this CNET article, is unable to spend more than two sentences on him. Google Web, News and Books searches do not produce any coverage of this man that passes the standards set at WP:BASIC. Note that he is not to be confused with the attorney Michael Snow at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP in Minneapolis, who has had some press coverage in relation to making large political donations." The article has been in fat deleted in the 2nd nomination, but recently recreated following an argument that the AfD last year had only a single vote (for delete), while the first one in 2009 was a snow (pun not intended) keep. Well, let's try to keep this one going until more than one vote had been cast. And let's keep in mind this is not a vote. All keep votes from the 2009 argued that there's substantial coverage. There isn't, I am afraid; having one name appear in passing (usually being cited for a sentence or two) even in NYT and other premiere sources is not sufficient - this is not "substantial coverage". A substantial coverage is when one is being written about (is the subject), and there's not a single source like this out there. PS. This bio should not be deleted, but transwiki'd to meta or the Foundation wiki; it's useful - but keep in mind WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid AfD argument for en-wiki._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You can't make someone notable just because he was on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. WP:GNG is having significant coverage and not just mere mentions which is what a lot of the sources about him are - mere mentions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any sources indicating notability Deunanknute (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am glad a more thorough discussion is taking place I would like to note that WP:BASIC does say "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", though most are trivial there are a few sources which are specifically written about him such as:

ABA Journal
Bloomberg

Other sources which mention him trivially include [1], and [2]. I remain neutral on this subject at this time, but would like to see whether the opinions of editors such as Finlay McWalter, Cirt, Juliancolton, and Ksnow who have edited the article or participated in past discussion have changed their consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get 404 for Bloomberg, and the ABA is not "specifically written about him such as"; he is just cited there, and since the entry is few sentences long, his quote is a major part of this "stub-story" :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the article titled "Michael Snow: Executive Profile & Biography" in Bloomberg Businessweek. Strangely, it does sometimes come up as "undefined" when you follow the link posted above. I suggest that you try to reach the page by browsing Google's search results instead and following links from there. The web page does indeed contain an 82-word biography of Michael Snow in the section of the page headed "Background". Other sections give the address, phone and fax numbers of his "corporate headquarters" and a link to a list of board members affiliated with him, in addition to repeating some of the information in the biography. James500 (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most competent people aren't notable, that's simple reality. Being the chair of a non-profits board of trustees for 2 years is not inherently notable. There's no "wikipedia exception" except if its non-mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Walsh (January 2014). Snow could be shown to be notable if we found, say, two major newspapers profiles of him, but I don't see any.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think his former position as chair of the board of trustees, his founding of the Wikipedia Signpost, and the coverage he has received, taken together, might add up to notability. If he does not object to the existence of this article, I don't either.
The biography in Bloomsberg Businessweek isn't short enough to be classified as "insignificant" on the basis of length alone. The canonical example of insignificant coverage (concerning Bill Clinton's high school band "Three Blind Mice") is a single 14-word sentence that (arguably) says nothing of importance and could be conveniently merged into an obvious target. Significant coverage certainly doesn't require two profiles just for the sake of having two. Nor does it require the article topic to be the primary subject of any of the sources. If you were going to argue for deletion, I think it really ought to be on the basis that BLPs are a special case that require far more coverage than other topics. To say that the WMF is not a exceptional case is to ignore the fact that the vast majority of charities do not run the seventh most popular website on the internet or possess the awesome level of influence that comes with that. James500 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500, you are essentially making an independent value judgment, which may not be incorrect, but is not how WP:GNG operates. I'm not saying two profile articles on Snow are absolutely necessary, but that is usually sufficient to turn the tide of any BLP AFD, if they get found. I don't give much credit to the Bloomberg entry[3], because that's basically an investor information database. As wikipedians, we have the authority to create an exception to GNG and BLP rules for WMF chairs, but we don't have one currently.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:44, 27 January 2015 (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.