Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Kurykh 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Murphy

AfDs for this article:
Gabriel Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable, associated company aplus.net deleted due to lack of notability, been deleted twice before, recreated on very thin DRV process involving just three four people, one of which seems to have been Gabriel Murphy's sockpuppet (i.e. a Wikipedia:Autobiography). Article is not linked into the rest of the wikipedia, nor was the aplus.net article. Appears to be purely advertising for aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Article has seen very little traffic (see the traffic logs [1]), which supports vanity status, and complete lack of true encyclopedic notability.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point out where the "purely advertising" portion of the article lies? Nearly all claims in the article are sourced. Please support your claim that this article constitutes "purely advertising"? You also claim the article has seen little traffic, but you use a traffic graph from February of this year, versus something more recent. The same program you link to show 352 views of the article in June. That aside, since when was the number of views in any way relevant to the status of an article?
That was probably you editing the article together. I used the traffic from February because that was the highest I could see it go. Feel free to point out any higher points here if you want. I honestly didn't look around too much. So June was a bit higher? That's still a very low hit rate. Most good articles get that per day, or per hour.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you make a very bold claim that the article was "recreated on very thin DRV process involving just three people, one of which seems to have been Gabriel Murphy's sockpuppet". You are correct that there were three people involved in the voting, those three users are lifebaka, Davewild and SmokeyJoe. Since you believe you are so righteous, please do tell the community which one of these three users is a sockpuppet account. My guess is you will not respond, as you know what you said is a pure lie used to prejudice the opinion of others by suggesting the deletion review process was “thin” (it lasted 5 full days) and one of the three aforementioned accounts is a sockpuppet, meaning the voting was not fair. Go ahead, name the sockpuppet for everyone- you know none of these accounts are sockpuppet. LakeBoater (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I miscounted, there were 4. The sockpuppet is you, and yes, you were involved. It was still a very quiet review; there was no evidence that anybody looked into anything in any real depth.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The associated aplus.net deletion reviews are here:

All of which resulted in deletes; and this is the main claim for notability of this individual.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your suggestion that aplus.net is the "main claim for notability" is grossly inaccurate based on a simple reading of the article and is just another example of you trying to prejudice the opinion of others as you clearly have an axe to grind with this article. The aplus.net section of the "Gabriel Murphy" article makes up around 1/8th of the entire content of the article.LakeBoater (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment holds no water. The only 'significant' thing mentioned in the introduction of the article is being the CEO of aplus.net. Given that aplus.net has been ruled to not be notable in the wikipedia, the article's subject has clearly failed to achieve notability. I also find that the other things mentioned in the article are less notable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall the article has been deleted more times than it has been AFD'd; the sockpuppets tend to recreate even with an outstanding AFD. Most recently on 21 June 2008, with an AFD still applying; the article had to be fixed as a redirect to Aplus.net. When aplus.net was deleted, the redirect got deleted at that time. The sockpuppets recreated the article, and required more administrator action to deal with this. Given the multiple underhand attacks, I recommend Delete and Salt.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have attacked this article, and with good reason. This person lacks notability, as does the company he has CEOd. There's also been what can best been described as repeated attacks on the neutrality of the wikipedia by this individual and his sockpuppets. (See aplus.net deletion reviews).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wolfkeeper, are you saying that I (LakeBoater) have "repeated attacks on the neutrality of the wikipedia"? You say, "by this individual", who are you talking about? Me, somewhone else, who? LakeBoater (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is borderline at most, there does seem to be WP:COI and in truth, the article is too long, noting several non-notable business activities and given the sourced coverage on this person, topic falls somewhat short of WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the repeated recreation of this and aplus.net I recommend delete and salt. The sockpuppets will simply recreate it otherwise. If he really does do something notable, then the notable thing will be notable in and of itself, and that would support overturning. Otherwise, salt.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done (both Aplus.Net and Aplus.net). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Wolfkeeper has a personal vendetta here, just as DuncanHill pointed out. Wolfkeeper fails to mention in his information the very relevant fact that a DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28 for this article, which concluded a mere 2 days ago, was to keep. He does suggest that one of the three votes was a sock account (I assume he is saying this account, LakeBoater, is a sock account?) but convienently does not name which one of the three accounts. Wolfkeeper then makes the claim that this (Aplus.net) is the main claim for notability of this individual is simply inaccurate. A simple review of the article will show this to be factually inaccurate as aplus constitutes only about 1/8th of the content of the article. Moreover, Wolfkeeper claims that my account is somehow a WP:Sock and that the aplus.net article was created by me as well, which a simple review of my contributions will show this to be false as well. As for the suggestion that this account has "few if any other edits", again, a simple review of my contributions will show this is grossly inaccurate (really, look at my contributions over the past 3-4 days prior to this AdF). It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to try to influence others with factually inaccurate information. Wolfkeeper could have voiced his opinion in the AfD discussion, but he did not, and the vote was to move the article to the mainspace. Several Wiki admins assisted in cleaning up the userfied article.

Finally, Wolfkeeper suggests that "this article has been deleted multiple times", but fails to point out that the latest version of this article was re-written and is substantially different (2x as many sources, cleaned-up with assistance from admins, etc.). I encourage everyone with an opinion here to review the article in its current form. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did carefully review the current version of the article and think the cited sources show this topic fails WP:BIO at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback Gwen Gale, can you help me understand whic part of WP:BIO this article fails to meet? Thanks for your help. LakeBoater (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources show that while you seem to have had a more or less successful career in business so far, you have not received a notable award or honor and have not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in your field. The sources themselves are thin, either passing references or of interest to limited markets. Hence your notability is borderline and my take is, it falls on the side of not-notable in Wikipedia terms for now. Most successful executives can come up with a few dozen references to themselves in trade magazines and local news outlets. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gwen Gale. I am not "Gabriel Murphy" as you are referring to me as "you" and by doing so implying such. Please review my contributions and you will see my interests/contributions in Wikipedia go far beyond this article. Having said this, Gabriel Murphy won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, which is a very highly regarded award given by Ernst & Young every year. His company also won the Small Business of the Year award by the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. He was also named one of the 40 business leaders under 40 by a KC magazine and one of the 50 technology leaders in Kansas City by The Kansas City Star. I would think one or all of these awards would qualify as "notable", and all of these awards are mentioned in the article and referenced by independent sources. I also disagree that the sources are thin. At least 5 of these sources are profiles or biographies on Gabriel Murphy by some publication (see reference #1, #3, #5, #23, #29 and #35), all of which mention Murphy in the title of the article and most all of which is information dealing exclusively with Murphy. You mentioned trade magazines, well reference #1 is a profile on Murphy by a trade magazine. Other examples:
Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24
Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM
Reference #5: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/04/08/focus1.html?t=printable
Reference #35: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/06/25/daily31.html?t=printable
Reference #38: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137330
Sure, not all of these references are about Gabriel Murphy (obviously) as I have included references where I can find them on Google that support various information in the article. Please review this information and reconsider your position. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the list of lakeboater's edits are here: [2]. While there is some percentage of edits on other article delete reviews, the great majority seem to be about trying to get the Gabriel Murphy article created, recreated, adding extra redirects, or prevent it being deleted, starting from the earliest edits. For whatever reason, lakeboater seems very keen on this guy; and this is consistent with there being a conflict of interest or autobiographical issue.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One notable thing is the 6 hours spent on (depending on your timezone) Sunday 22 June by lakeboater editing this article. That seems to be a remarkably large chunk of time for somebody who claims not to be Gabriel Murphy, and, as has been noted by someone elsewhere in this AFD, has also uploaded an image of Gabriel Murphy's signature, and marked it as 'own work'.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Gabriel Murphy" was one of my first articles/contribs to Wikipedia. Guilty of that. Since then, I have contributions to about 40+ other articles. As for spending 6 hours on "editing this article", I was actually creating it when it was userfied by an administrator per the DR (I would encourage you to read the DR on this article). Perhaps that admin is a sockpuppet as well? Is your issue now not about notability but an attempt to show WP:COI? If so, can you kindly point out the part of the article that is vanity/advertising and/or non-neutral? I am guessing you cannot because most everything in the article is sourced. As for the image, yes, it came from one of the referenced articles from the KCBJ via the web and I did not select the proper option- guity of that too (I will correct it tomorrow). I am trying to work in good faith here- let's turn this into a productive conversation. Tell me exactly what you have an issue with so I can address it. LakeBoater (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lakeboater, the pith is, I think you've made your keen and highly personal interest in this article quite clear. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying I am interested in this article- I created it. Having said that, did you review my response with information on the various awards and the 5+ articles that are bios/profiles on Murphy? Just trying to help you make an informed decision. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The awards aren't encyclopedic/notable. I've already said what I had to say about the coverage. This is all borderline, a fit CV but falls on the shy side of WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Gwen Gale, then I would suggest you edit the Ernst & Young Wikipedia article then as the major irony here is that the Wikipedia article for Ernst & Young discusses the Entrepreneur of the Year award program, which you claim is not notable. You have to love the irony here :) Here is the link to the Wikipedia article discussing the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year program for your convienence. Let me know if you now take a different position on the notability of this award. LakeBoater (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WAX. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:BIO which as I argued in the deletion review is available here. References 1 and 3 alone provide this significant coverage without even considering the other sources. While the Business Career section certainly need trimming this is not a deletion issue. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - firstly, disappointed that such a recent debate has been brought so quickly to the forum for re-debate, not just once but thrice: surely a month would be a good gap between debates over a few days? However, I think the debate here rests on what is notability. Looking at WP:BIO and the references used in the current version, I think he doesn't presently make the required criteria - close, but not quite. WP:BIO asks for both significant secondary sources, and significant and notable contribution - if the criteria were defined in Murphy's case as "Kansas" than yes, he would pass WP:BIO. But it doesn't, and I read the required level of sources as national or at least outside of state, as opposed to just/mainly state. I also think the current version is wholly over written and has too much coverage of (in three years times) wholly insignificant details - the property piece being a great example: tends to suggest addition of details to make sure the article is kept, over the creation of an encyclopaedic entry. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am very disappointed that this keeps cropping up. But much the same article simply keeps getting recreated, by the same person, alternating between aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Essentially, this guy has asked the same question 6 times, and 4 times out of 5 the wikipedia has told him it's not significant enough to be here; this is the six, and it's not looking good. We need to make it clear that he needs to stop asking now as it simply wastes our collective time. Under normal circumstances, this would be a week delete or reluctant delete, but due to the circumstances, I'm asking that you change your vote to salt if you don't want this to be back again next month. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Trident13. I am going to ask that you reconsider your vote on the basis that national or outside of the state is not a requirement to meet notability as Davewild points out. Even if this is your opinion (which no doubt you are entitled to), the article does have sources which are national coverage in nature. An example is Reference #1, which is the Web Hosting Industry Review Magazine, which is a national publication. I would content that Cornell University is national versus local in nature as well and is used twice as a source in the article. Additionally, many of these sources are outside the state of Kansas (as you suggest above would be needed), as The Kansas City Business Journal and The Kansas City Star is bi-state for Missouri and Kansas. Thanks for your consideration.
On a personal note, I too am disappointed that this debate has cropped up a mere 24 hours after the Deletion Review consensus was to keep. I followed the proper protocol via working on the article from scratch in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators. The new article is substantially different from the previous. However, Wolfkeeper does not want you to know this, so instead he simply has resorted to making up lies (there I said it) about this article and my intent/motive/COI/behavior/etc. Wolfkeeper said, "much the same article simply keeps getting recreated, by the same person, alternating between aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Essentially, this guy has asked the same question 6 times, and 4 times out of 5 Wikipedia has told him it's not significant enough to be here". Bold statements, but factually inaccurate and Wolfkeeper knows it. A review of the prior version of the article will debunk his/her claim. Wolfkeeper is not really interested in trying to work together to resolve whatever issues he has with the article (see above where I ask him yesterday what specific issues he has and rely my interest in working together in good faith, to which I did not receive a response). Wolfkeeper instead wants you to believe that this question (should the "Gabriel Murphy" article be kept) question 6 times- totally untrue. He tries to tie this article in with aplus.net even though he opened this AfD on "Gabriel Murphy". This article has been voted to keep once, delete once, and this is the third nomination. I followed the proper protocols via Deletion Review for this article. I am trying to work with everyone who is objective and not prejudiced by the inaccurate statements repeatedly made by Wolfkeeper, even though it does appear his method of attack is proving effective for him with several votes. LakeBoater (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This was taken to Deletion Review where it was allowed to be recreated due to the new sources which are in this article as compared to the article which was deleted at the last AFD. Lakeboater quite appropiately took the userspace version to DRV to see if it could be restored, salting would have made no difference to this.
Secondly WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The sources in the article show this, in particular this source here and this one. This establishes notability based on wikipedias guidelines rather than on a subjective look at his importance.
I would also note that if Lakeboater does have a conflict of interest then the relevant policy WP:COI specifically says that "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article". Davewild (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. Coverage in a trade magazine and a local business journal don't confer encyclopedic notability (Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations notes a strong difference between news sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said that it was a guideline above and am not sure on what basis they do not establish notability as they are reliable sources according to my reading of WP:RS? I have yet to see any evidence that they are not independent of the subject and the coverage is very significant. Davewild (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen Gale lets be fair- surely if you read the article you know that coverage of this individual is more than, "a trade magazine and a local business journal". I would bet a count of the different sources would show at least a dozen. We can all have varying opinions, but let's make sure our facts are accurate. Let me know if you want me to count the number of sources so everyone is aware of the actual number of different sources. LakeBoater (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two were put forth, more or less, as the least trivial. Meanwhile Davewild and I can disagree on this one, it's ok. I've said at least twice I think this is borderline. I understand why it's been bouncing back and forth through AfDs like this. As for WP:COI, it could be helpful to quote the opening: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor... COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. Putting this to the steadfast duck test, it quacks like disruption to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new to Wikipedia so please bear with me. I tend to agree with Davewild's analysis as I too am also not sure on what basis the articles (especially #1 and #3 alone) do not establish notability as they are reliable sources according to WP:RS. I also agree that no one has yet to show any evidence that they are not independent of the subject. Can anyone voting to delete please help me out here? Otherwise, I am inclined to vote to keep the article. 70.13.195.8 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What newcomer? It looks to me that they've been spamming aplus.net into the wikipedia since back in 2006 (that's what the first delete review ruled). As to notability of this magazine I'd never heard of it. I googled whirmagazine and found it with some (unusually for me) minor difficulty. I don't know how people normally try to decide how prestigious a publication is in cases like this, but it doesn't seem to have a very high google ranking for example (4). It's not exactly the New York Times. The page rank of the second one is zero (presumably because it's too new to have a page rank). Quite frankly, a home page I keep elsewhere on the web has had a higher google rank than either of those, and I make no claim of notability at all.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a newcomer, just don't say "vanity". Allegations of spamming are serious, but we have to stick with this subject. Sources need not themselves be notable. They need to be reliable and independent. Did the subject pay for the article? If you can demonstrate lack of independence, that invalidates the source for purposes of demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations makes a strong distinction in noting that sourcing from news publications is "welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." WP:Common sense leads us to think that notability (in Wikipedia's terms) is much more likely to be conferred by a feature article in the New York Times than in a struggling trade magazine for ISPs or a local business journal. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, true as it is, supports a deletion argument here. The notability of the subject is in question here, and to demonstrate notability, independent reliable secondary sources suffice. There is no requirement for major newspapers to establish notability, indeed, the seeking out of obscure sources is to be commended. Also note our first pillar. Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations is about the content, especially contentious content, and is not particularly applicable to interpretations of WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of reliability though, we have no real way to know that this tiny publication is reliable. We know very little about the fact checking, independence or anything else of this publication, it could be run by the guy's brother in law or something.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several references in the article that appear to demonstrate notability, and they don't seem to have reliability problems. The things that they report don't seem to be in dispute. Suggestions like the publications "could be run by the guy's brother in law or something" need substantiation before you even raise them, as per WP:AGF. Agreed, there are advertising and WP:COI issues here (I note that User:LakeBoater was the copyright owner of the subjects portrait [3]). I also note that the subject and his company have a history of being the subject of dubious contributions by non-experienced wikipedians. However, these are not reasons for deletion. The subject or his company has possibly done a successful job of a behind the scenes publicity campaign, but, the bottom line is that there are multiple independent secondary sources, meaning that the subject satisfied WP:N, meaning that there is no need to meet alternative criteria found in WP:BIO. If you don't like the sources, you need evidence that they are non-independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that all publications are reliable unless proven otherwise. Is that a policy? That wouldn't work, it's too easy to create or manipulate the smaller publications. It seems to me that you have to assume that they aren't without any evidence. For other reliable sources that the wikipedia relies on, that's fairly easily done, to get good evidence, but for such a small trade paper? It's pretty much impossible. So the main claim for notability, this publication does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:RS for the global resource that is the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree strongly. Although most any publication can be swayed into giving someone publicity (with money or something else), smaller, more local or struggling publications can often be swayed much more cheaply and easily. So, someone with the means to plant a feature story in the London Times is much more likely to be already notable than someone else who has gotten a feature into a local business paper. Although Wikipedia policy has no requirements along these lines, I think it's helpful to use common sense here. Is this topic truly notable? The only disagreement I see among us is whether this topic is barely notable or not at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the first two references (there are several other sources as well):

(1) http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 Feature article. The Web Hosting Industry Review. Digital Magazine Edition! Also available in a print edition. They have a declared CEO and editorial team (http://www.thewhir.com/about/team.cfm) and their names don’t readily cross-reference with Gabriel Murphy

(2) http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage Gabriel “Gabe” Murphy clearly has some strong links with Cornell University See also http://eclips.cornell.edu/search?querytext=murphy&id=id&tab=TabSpeakersPage

I don’t get any sense that these sources are below the threshold for sources suitable for demonstrating notability. The subject meets WP:N. Therefore keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment about SPAs I've already noted the deep worries stirred up by the conflict of interest which is clearly behind this article. User:LakeBoater, who created this latest version of the article, shows a very limited contribution history which has to do only with this topic (and is more than likely the subject himself or otherwise someone closely and personally linked with him). WP:SPA reminds us: The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards... Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment about SPAs. Attempts at vote stacking, accompanied by poor arguments based on a poor understanding of Wikipedia, are actually quite transparent, and in the end these people damage their credibility and do more to harm their cause than help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on etiquette PLease can editors refrain from inserting their comments into the middle of other editors' comments, e.g like this [4] as it makes it hard for other editors to know who said what and when. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is clearly notable per Davewild's analysis (ref 1 and 3 alone) and the article stood up on a deletion review recently. Even if there are conflict of interest concerns, it is not reason alone to delete and this article seems pretty well referenced anyway (meaning most of the claims / statements in the article are taken from the referenced articles), which would certainly mitigate a conflict of interest and neutrality issue as no one has suggested these sources are not independent. 70.13.183.36 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: The only edits by this anonymous IP are in this article, and I have indeed suggested that as a real possibility.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakStrong delete This is mostly a resume. Much of the text is WP:COATRACK. For instance, each subheading for the companies list begin with the person, but quickly diverge into company information. There is some sense of notability, but this article in the current state isn't it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think all of the articles "quickly diverge into company information"? I ask that you reconsider your position/vote per the following references:
Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 <-- A bio on the subject, which does mention his various companies
Reference #2: http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage <-- purely about the subject with no mention of his companies
Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM <-- A bio on the subject
Reference #37: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137329 <-- an article on the subject winning the E&Y Entrepreneur of the Year award.
My understanding of a coatrack is an article that, "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject". I read the WP:COATRACK page carefully and cannot see how this article would qualify as WP:COATRACK. You say that, "each subheading for the companies list begin with the person, but quickly diverge into company information"? So the thoery is that the intent of the article is to promote these various companies and not provide information about the subject? I think it is important to understand that the subject is highly involved with these companies, either as founder or some other high role (CEO). So I do not think this article would be considered a WP:COATRACK. The most support for this is the articles where independent sources verify the subject and its relatedness with the various companies. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well:
  1. The company grew into an $8 million a year revenue producer in less than five years. It recorded 16 consecitive quarters of profitability. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.
  2. In May, CommuniTech.Net was selected from nearly 1,700 nominations as the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce's “Small Business of the Year” and Mr. K award winner. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.
  3. If CommuniTech.Net had not been sold in 2002, it would have recorded the fastest revenue growth of any company in Kansas City from 1998 - 2001 per Ingram's Magazine Corporate Report 100. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.
Comment'. I get it and thank you much for the feedback- it is nice to work with people who have a geniune interest in trying to help improve articles. I now understand your point. I will make futher edits. Thanks agian. LakeBoater (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: above account is not a new account, but has a vast majority of edits articles on webmail, including Fusemail, which is one of the companies that Gabriel Murphy invested in. It seems likely that this is Gabriel Murphy also. Note also the 2 different editing anonymous IPs in quick succession; this appears to be evidence of deliberate obfuscation going on, and supports the likelyhood of another sockpuppet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, part of this comment was written by 64.126.14.3, which is a extensive contributor to both Gabriel Murphy as well as Fusemail. It's another sock, almost completely for sure. (It geolocates to "KANSAS-OVERLAND PARK" with ISP 'ABACUS AMERICA INC' which is one of Gabriel Murphy's companies)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Note to closing administrator: As pointed out above by DuncanHill and others, Wolfkeeper has a history of attacking this article (which he admits to) and spreading inaccurate statements to attempt to prejudice the views of others. While I do not know what accounts, if any, the subject has on Wikipedia, Wolfkeeper wants you to believe that most people voting in favor of keeping the article are some how associated with the subject or the subject himself. A review of Wolfkeeper's talk page show he has been accused of at lease one edit war recently. A review of the entire dialogue in this AfD will show I asked Wolfkeeper to point out what he had issues with in the article. He did not answer as his interest is not in improving the article (if it does indeed need improvement in his view) but instead to have the article deleted and salted at all costs. Nevermind the article stood up on a Deletion Review on June 28 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28) by a vote of 3-0.

This isn't about me, and I wasn't anyway, but my all-too extensive record on the wikipedia shows only one block, for a very short time two years ago.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Murphy seems to have strangely forgotten about the delete review on June 2[5] where the recreation was turned down. How many times do we have to put up with this sockpuppet recreating deleted material?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting observation for the closing administrator is that most all of the votes to delete were from users who hardly ever vote on any other AfD except this one (and anything related to the subject) versus most users who voted to keep (Davewild, SmokeyJoe, myself, who spend a majority of their time on either AdF or deletion review. Finally, HouseofScandal's "vote" to Strong Delete (the only one) and "TP Murph's house" with no explination as to why it would be a Strong Delete is obviously not made in good faith. The comment regarding TPing someones house probably voilates WP:CIV as well. LakeBoater (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on other AFDs is by no means a requirement, but I certainly have done so. But this is irrelevant anyway, the only issue for this review is to generate consensus on what should be done with this article. The true fact is that my comments are out in the open, lakeboater has been caught astroturfing yet again, and he's done it in most of the reviews of this and the aplus.net article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to recommend that these kind of discussions be held in abeyance, and focus on the matter at hand, which is the suitability for inclusion. These side snipes add nothing to the conversation, and I'm personally tempted to paste them into the talk page of this AFD. I stumbled into the AFD by sheer chance, and have my own personal opinion of this, but my opinion is irrelevant beyond the issue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will comply with your request and not respond further to any side snipes. Thanks Yngvarr for the suggestion. LakeBoater (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is definitely marginal and it's an orphan. I'd expect an article on a notable person to be linked to from at least one other article. That lack is certainly evidence against notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned article that appears to be resume (Wikipedia is not a resume service). As often remarked in these AfD discussions, articles are usually orphaned for a reason. B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Caerwine and B.Wind. I was unaware that linking from other articles to the article in question was a criteria for notability. I have reviewed notability carefully and could not find any mention of such. What notability does say is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Regardless, the reason this article is not linked is simply becuase this article is brand new as it was just put into the mainspace after deletion review on June 28- just 12 days ago. I would think it would be reasonable to assume that it would take time (more than 12 days) for editors to link to individuals whose entries are new to Wikipedia. I also tend to believe that editors are reluctant to link to articles that are nominated for deletion, in which case this article had less than 24 hours in the mainspace before it was AdF tagged. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment  The number of articles linking to an article has nothing to do with notability, just as the amount of page views to an article have nothing to do with notability. Troyc (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep.  I have voted on this discussion in previous AdFs as I know of this individual.  I believe this article clearly meets the notability standard with the various references, which are significant and reliable (no one has questioned this) and they are independent of the subject (no one has questioned this either). Troyc (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin above editor has essentially only contributed in this review, presumably YASP.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have questioned whether the sources are independent, the primary reference is a very small, local publication, and we have no way of checking their reliability. Unless they can be shown to be reliable sources, they are not reliable for the purposes of the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume by "the primary reference is a very small, local publication, and we have no way of checking their reliability", you are referring to the Kansas City Business Journal? As you are obviously not aware, The Kansas City Business Journal is a publication of the American City Business Journals and "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website. Here is their website: http://www.acbj.com/about-us/overview.html. The website for The Kansas City Business Journal is here: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/. Here is information about The Kansas City Business Journal paper: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/aboutus/about_the_paper.html. Here is a link to their editorial staff showing 12 editors on their staff: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/aboutus/edit_services.html. It would behoove you to review this information since you are assuming this is a "very small local publication and you have no way of checking their reliability". I think this clearly demonstrates that they are more than a reliable source of news information. LakeBoater (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sister article aplus.net didn't have any links to it either. And while being an orphan isn't in-and-of-itself a reason for delete, it does raise the chances that it's non-notable. And I can't really see how this would ever be linked, most of the ways to do that would involve adding it to a list of some kind; list of business men, list of entrepreneurs. Such lists are generally frowned upon in the wikipedia and tend to get deleted. Basically, the wikipedia isn't a whos-who or a business index or anything, and that's why these kinds of articles are almost inherently non notable, unless the individual has to have done something else very notable, but there's nothing here like that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you are doing is trying to change the definintion of notability, which is already defined by Wikipeida, so that your definition changes that standard so that you can make an argument that this article should not be included. Now your argument is that the article would never be linked in Wikipedia and therefore it is not notable. Per Wikipedia, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". Not how many other articles link to it, or ever will link to it, or how many page views the article gets. Non-linked articles are no where mentioned on the notability page, as it is wholly irrelevant. LakeBoater (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137867142"