Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brooks

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brooks

Creater of the page is the subject, after a protracted discussion (see the talk page) with another user, he requested the page be deleted. However, the listing was not carried out properly therefore i'm completing it per his wishes. Looks like it could fail WP:BIO. I'm abstaining. Rockpocket 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Unless sources can be procured, delete American Patriot 1776 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Because someone who claims to be the subject of the article requests it to be deleted IS NOT a reason to delete the article. If the subject is notable and reliable sources can be found to support that then the article should be kept, regardless of the subjects request. DrunkenSmurf 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am aware of that. I did not begin the AfD, another editor did, but did so incorrectly. I simply rescued the malformed listing. I would suggest you read the talk page and address your comments to the editors there. Rockpocket 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually since it is in Afd now the correct place for comments regarding this is here. If you were aware that him requesting his page be deleted was not a valid deletion reason then why didn't you tell him originally? That would have been a good thing to put on the talk page. DrunkenSmurf 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - HE had already been told and because, again if you read the talk page, you will notice that the editor he was in dispute with clearly did have notability issues and had discussed listing here. Since their dispute became personal (at least in the opinion of the subject), the other editor no longer felt comfortable listing, lest it seen to be in bad faith and further escalate the situation. The subject of the article then offered to list it himself, to settle the dispute. It was this abortive attempt that i rescued. My role was simply one of assisting a new editor complete what i believe to be, at its root, a good faith nom. The fact there is not (yet) a consensus suggests to me it was not an extraordinarily bad listing. Thats my role, no more, not less. I hope thats clear. Rockpocket 06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to comment Rockpocket has been nothing but HELPFULL in this process and trying to keep cool heads and has been a voice of reason. Also, Historymike tried to delete this article but went about it in the wrong way since he is new to WIki policy and procedures. I just pointed out to him that you can't blank a page if other people have edited that page. I didn't want to AFD the article myself as per above so Rockpocket HELPED out...In the scope of things, this has just been some minor back and forth banter and imho not a big deal..chalk it up to the Wiki learning curve :)...anyways...--Tom 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep award-winning historian and journalist, with publications. Appears notable to me. If vandalism is a problem I recommend semi-protection, or protection of that doesn't stop the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Hi, I am the "another user" mention at the top. Just to recap incase you came in late. 1)Michael Brooks created his own biography. 2) I questioned his notability and deleted blog reference(his own blog). 3) Michael and I have been going "nah na na nah nah" at each other back and forth ever since.4)Michael blanked the page to delete it.5)It came here instead. Got it? Anyways, I have no idea if this meets criteria for inclusion into the project but I will obviously abstain from voting. Good luck...--Tom 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is encyclopedic although it could use some indepedent sources. Subject has won several prizes, so notability does not seem to be an issue here. Deleting an article is not the way to deal content disputes or vandalism anyway. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I am the original author, ackowledge that I violated vanity guideleines, and wish to end this dispute with user Tom. I tried to blank page it after the user complained, and then Tom reverted back. This is waaaay more headaches than it is worth, and I have much better things to do than waste my time getting into silly arguments about blog-vs.-traditional media debates or fixing reckless deletions. I am trying to be the bigger party and voluntarily delete this page so that Wikipedians can get back to more important work than the biography of a marginally important journalist and academic. Had I realized how political and petty these debates can get, I would have never written the article; this has soured me on Wikipedia, and I don't want it to completely turn me away from Wiki edits in the future.Historymike 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Michael you say above you are "a marginally important journalist", yet in your first post to my talk page you describe yourself as "a national journalist". I then question that and you call me rude? I reverted your page per policy and you call me a vandal. I have tried to link many useful WP: since you are new. I am sorry you are soured but calling me rude, a vandal, and agenda driven doesn't help it would seem. Anyways, if this article remians, I would encourage you to monitor it and use the talk page to improve the article as you see fit. I really meant it when I said Wiki can always use improvement. Cheers. --Tom 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment(takes deep breath) One can be both "national" and "marginal," Tom. I have been published in numerous national; periodicals, and my work has been featured on MSNBC, Slate, and CBS.com (among others), but I am hardly in the class of, say, an Anderson Cooper; hence, "marginal" is a relative term. Anyone can read your snide comments on various talk pages questioning my work as a journalist and decide for themselves what you really meant. Besides, when one self-describes as "marginal," it should be seen as humility or self-deprecation; when one describes another that way, it could be interpreted as an attack. I am trying, by initiating the AfD process, to appease you, but you seem to want to keep the argument going. BTW - my comments about vadalizing refer to pages where, in your zeal to delete my edits, you deleted the work of other people. Stop trying to twist my words, sir.Historymike 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Michael, I never said I wanted your bio nuked. I did question wheather you were notable. You say you want to appease me but you make posts like this just because I created that article? Then you accuse me of some type of affilliation and that I think policy only applies to other people?. Also, please don't back pedal on calling me a vandal. Do I really need to pull up all of those too? As I mentioned, some people can take that the wrong way. Also, don't call me sir :P....--Tom 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to comment Tom, Tom, Tom...1) Yes, you are right about Exum. If, as you claim, you have no link to Exum, then please accept my apologies. 2) Re: vandalism: My comments about vandalism are, in the main, directed against your reckless edits that erased other peoples' work in your effort to erase mine. I did get peeved when you demanded a citation on the Michael Brooks bio, and then kept deleting the citation because it came from a blog (never mind that it is from an award-winning author, David Neiwert, whose area of expertise is watching the racist right. You just assumed the citation link was to my blog). You are obviously a person who is not willing to consider that some blogs are now go-to media sites unto themselves, and I do not wish to waste time on the blogs-vs-traditional media debate here. 3)For someone who professes to just want to get along, you sure do spend an awful lot of time coming back here to keep stirring things up. Toodles...Historymike 00:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Hi Michael, 1) Apology accepted, no biggie. 2) I don't think my edits were "reckless" or erased others work. The only ONE I think was this and I did add that material back in. All the other edits were removing blogs as referrences. I never "demanded" anything, I just placed a fact tag on some material on your bio. 3) Not really stirring things up, just trying to respond to defend myself.--Tom 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's no shame in articles that start out as autobiography when a person is notable -- though it is best when others work on an article and improve it. I agree that the article is encyclopaedic enough, though it could use some work. Evertype 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, well for starters this appears to be a content dispute, and should be resolved as such. Second... the article currently cites no sources to back up any claims towards WP:BIO and is in fact completely unverified. This to me is absolutely grounds for deletion; but WP:AGF sourcing exists. Could someone opining keep add some sources? (and not the "blog"... that is not a reliable source)--Isotope23 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I added a source for one of the awards, it is currently in the article DrunkenSmurf 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep' per MacGyverMagic. Although WP:AUTObiographies are frowned upon, that is not a reason for deletion if the subject is notable and reliable outside sources can be provided for the text. RFerreira 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't mind the autobio, but he's not notable. I need more compelling evidence. C56C 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Prizes themselves seem non-notable, so for me don't help to establish notability of the subject. Therefore fails WP:BIO. Fairsing 05:40, 26 August 2006 (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.