695:. ok, granted i am new to wikipedia, so i don't know what the heck the term "meat-puppet" means (i personally find that term derogatory for an "open" environment like wikipedia). i am not a meat-puppet, nor I’m a vegetarian-puppet, nor am I any kind of puppet. maybe others who are making the accusations are sockpuppets or meat-puppets themselves. anyway i prefer not to call people by terms and names, just debate the issues. so, i come back to the core 2 issues being debated here. is this article about someone who is notable? and secondly, are the sources fluffy? i have reviewed this article once again, and all the sources. except for maybe 1-2, all the sources are credible and journalistic professional, not fluffy. and yes, the person is notable, based on all the criteria i can find that wikipedia lays out for notability, plus comparison to others like him who are notable in their industry. we should keep the debate focused on these 2 issues, not digress to name calling --
643:). Since we have the word of Christophermaxim that they are a new editor, and not a sockpuppet, the most reasonable explanation is either that they were recruited for this purpose (they didn't say that they weren't) or that they were registered and not editing (lurking or sleeping) for a long time until they were needed by Poonen or his employer. Okay. They are not a sockpuppet, and my own opinion is that the guideline on
351:- I dispute that this person is not notable. The person this article is about, is COO of the 5th largest software companies in the world, and has had a fair amount of news around him. Much of the criteria on notability applies to him - making him notable. There will always be debate among some who think he is notable, and others who think he isn't. There are others in similar type of business COO roles
332:
author, who is desperate to get an article, typically about their employer, accepted, either to avoid speedy deletion, or in AFC. No amount of cleanup will make a non-notable person notable (and removal of promotional content from a spam article will leave nothing). If the authors cannot add to the
584:
stop intimidating new editors who join wikipedia from contributing to articles, it is supposed to be an open platform. don't attack the new editors, just debate the issues here - which are notability (the person is notable), and your accusation that the cited sources are all social media fluff (also
518:
notable? the answer is yes, by the criteria that wikipedia lays out for notability, and comparison to others like him who are notable in their inustry (that one of the other editors was trying to make before someone struck out their feedback). second question is, are the sources all social media, ie
328:- One of the authors asked me on my talk page what part of the article would need to be cleaned up so that the article would no longer be subject to deletion. In my experience, that question (what can be removed to make the article acceptable) is typically asked about a promotional article by a
355:
that are just as notable. Further, there are over 20 references listed on the person, and there is nothing in the subsequent community edits of the article that are peacock self-promotional. I have seen other
Knowledge pages that are worse. They all point to legitimate articles, written by
616:
is one of the less visible and more arcane features of
Knowledge, and is not the first place that a new editor will normally turn. The idea that Christophermaxim simply decided to edit Knowledge and simply happened to come to this particular contentious AFD, which has a history of
717:- Maybe my point wasn't clear. I wasn't name-calling. I don't know what a meatpuppet is either, and so I wasn't calling anyone a meatpuppet. I said that the rule about meatpuppets is incomprehensible, and so I won't refer to anyone as a meatpuppet. However, the concept of
513:
i am not a sockpuppet of the editors of the article, so don't dismiss feedback just because you think anyone who provides positive input is engaging in sockpuppetry. i have reviewed the article. it seems there are 2 issues at debate here. is the person
306:
Have again reviewed sourcing. Although sourcing has improved in number, the 3rd party coverage does not go into significant depth about the subject. Passing references here and there. The bulk of sourcing is still from sources connected with the
580:— yes, i am a new contributor to wikipedia, and yes there is always a first date to start contributing to wikipedia, i am not an editor on this article, i just reviewed it. hopefully i will contribute to other wikipedia topics over time. dear
170:
290:
Despite heroic effort by article creators, the subject is NN and the sources do not meet requirements for significant coverage. Possible self-promotion or otherwise. Creators have not been very forthcoming.
519:
facebook, twitter, linkedin. over 90% of the sources cited are credible journals or magazines, so this article is not just "pr fluff," as one of the critics suggests. so i vote to keep.
796:- I don't know whether Christophermaxim is a meatpuppet because I don't know what a meatpuppet is, and find the guideline on meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible. But I do know what a
779:
subject is not notable. Christopher Maxim, everyone can see through your facade. You are clearly a meat-puppet. You didn't randomly decide to begin your editing career on this page.
218:
273:. Not notable, likely self-created given the kind of information and photos added; editor has repeatedly added non-encyclopaedic content and sourced to linked in and Facebook.
443:
have reviewed added sourcing since my post and maintain my position that there is insufficient depth of coverage. Mostly from corporate website and social media or PR fluff.
739:
164:
463:
123:
244:
677:
was not intimidating new users, but was commenting on facts. Two of the previous editors are sockpuppets, and you have made no edits outside the area.
201:
Non-notable business person. A Google search indicates that this person exists, and comes up with the usual vanity hits. Article is promotional.
555:
534:
416:
130:
372:
760:
hasn't made any other edits except about this article, and so clearly isn't just a new account who happened to come this way first.
96:
91:
559:
420:
376:
100:
17:
83:
185:
400:: definitely support keeping this page, as the person is notable and the sources cited are credible and reliable journals
152:
851:
805:
765:
726:
682:
656:
497:
471:
338:
206:
40:
551:
530:
412:
146:
569:
449:
430:
386:
368:
313:
296:
757:
714:
696:
670:
625:, and simply happened to show up to say that this article, and no other article, should not be deleted, is
609:
547:
526:
832:
809:
788:
769:
751:
730:
721:
is clear, and a non-notable person is a non-notable person, even if single-purpose accounts defend them.
705:
686:
660:
574:
538:
501:
475:
454:
435:
391:
342:
318:
301:
282:
262:
255:
236:
229:
210:
142:
64:
847:
784:
87:
36:
674:
581:
564:
444:
425:
381:
308:
291:
801:
761:
722:
701:
678:
652:
522:
493:
467:
334:
202:
192:
515:
408:
401:
178:
79:
71:
364:
357:
488:
votes have been blocked as sockpuppets. The AFD should continue because this is not a case for
747:
648:
278:
250:
224:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
846:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
356:
legitimate journalists in
Fortune, Business Insider, that have been written about the person.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
780:
158:
352:
644:
618:
822:
818:
817:- Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this subject passes
797:
718:
622:
613:
329:
743:
489:
274:
53:
117:
627:
612:
has made three edits, all of which are to content this AFD. So far, so good.
636:
632:
639:(in fact, on this AFD, editors were blocked for not each being a different
333:
article to make the subject notable, no amount of subtraction will help.
640:
840:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
492:, as the article was created prior to the sockpuppetry.
113:
109:
105:
177:
219:
631:in that it is not worthy of belief by a reasoning
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
854:). No further edits should be made to this page.
740:list of California-related deletion discussions
191:
8:
738:Note: This debate has been included in the
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
217:Note: This debate has been included in the
737:
699:
520:
245:list of India-related deletion discussions
242:
216:
647:is incomprehensibly vague, so they were
464:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Whisperwire
7:
462:- Please note that there has been a
24:
635:, and one editor should be one
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
871:
843:Please do not modify it.
833:11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
810:02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
65:14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
789:18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
770:16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
752:06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
731:03:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
719:single-purpose accounts
706:04:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
687:18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
661:20:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
575:22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
539:21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
502:13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
476:13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
455:11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
436:10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
392:10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
343:03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
319:22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
302:01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
283:13:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
263:07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
237:07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
211:03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
798:single-purpose account
758:User:Christophermaxim
715:User:Christophermaxim
697:User:Christophermaxim
671:User:Christophermaxim
651:in some way. Okay.
614:Articles for Deletion
610:User:Christophermaxim
560:few or no other edits
421:few or no other edits
377:few or no other edits
623:conflict of interest
562:outside this topic.
423:outside this topic.
379:outside this topic.
330:conflict of interest
608:Okay. Let's see.
358:User:twinpeaks1900
754:
708:
675:User:Dlohcierekim
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
582:User:Dlohcierekim
563:
541:
525:comment added by
424:
404:02:30, 2 May 2017
380:
265:
239:
862:
845:
829:
826:
621:and may involve
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
579:
572:
567:
548:Christophermaxim
545:
527:Christophermaxim
452:
447:
433:
428:
406:
389:
384:
362:
316:
311:
299:
294:
260:
258:
253:
234:
232:
227:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
61:
57:
34:
870:
869:
865:
864:
863:
861:
860:
859:
858:
852:deletion review
841:
827:
824:
802:Robert McClenon
762:Robert McClenon
723:Robert McClenon
679:Robert McClenon
653:Robert McClenon
570:
565:
494:Robert McClenon
468:Robert McClenon
450:
445:
431:
426:
387:
382:
353:B. Kevin Turner
335:Robert McClenon
314:
309:
297:
292:
256:
251:
249:
230:
225:
223:
203:Robert McClenon
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
59:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
868:
866:
857:
856:
836:
835:
812:
791:
773:
772:
755:
735:
734:
733:
704:comment added
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
543:
542:
507:
506:
505:
504:
479:
478:
457:
438:
409:Dynamitecotton
402:Dynamitecotton
394:
345:
323:
322:
321:
285:
267:
266:
240:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
867:
855:
853:
849:
844:
838:
837:
834:
831:
830:
820:
816:
813:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
707:
703:
698:
694:
691:— still vote
689:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
624:
620:
615:
611:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:
583:
577:
576:
573:
568:
561:
557:
553:
549:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
517:
516:Sanjay Poonen
512:
509:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
456:
453:
448:
442:
439:
437:
434:
429:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
403:
399:
395:
393:
390:
385:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:twinpeaks1900
361:
359:
354:
350:
346:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
324:
320:
317:
312:
305:
304:
303:
300:
295:
289:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
264:
261:
259:
254:
246:
241:
238:
235:
233:
228:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:Sanjay Poonen
77:
76:
73:
72:Sanjay Poonen
70:
68:
67:
66:
62:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
842:
839:
823:
814:
793:
776:
692:
690:
669:
645:meatpuppetry
626:
619:sockpuppetry
578:
544:
521:— Preceding
510:
485:
459:
440:
397:
396:
348:
347:
325:
287:
270:
252:CAPTAIN RAJU
248:
226:CAPTAIN RAJU
222:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
63:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
781:Lepricavark
700:—Preceding
585:not true).
558:) has made
419:) has made
375:) has made
360:May 1, 2017
165:free images
637:H. sapiens
633:H. sapiens
628:incredible
848:talk page
744:• Gene93k
649:canvassed
571:cierekim
484:The only
451:cierekim
432:cierekim
388:cierekim
315:cierekim
298:cierekim
37:talk page
850:or in a
556:contribs
535:contribs
523:unsigned
417:contribs
373:contribs
307:subject.
124:View log
39:or in a
794:Comment
702:undated
641:hominid
460:Comment
441:comment
326:Comment
275:Melcous
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
819:WP:GNG
815:Delete
777:Delete
288:Delete
271:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
50:delete
800:is.
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
60:Train
16:<
828:5969
825:Onel
806:talk
785:talk
766:talk
748:talk
727:talk
693:keep
683:talk
657:talk
566:Dloh
552:talk
531:talk
511:keep
498:talk
486:Keep
472:talk
446:Dloh
427:Dloh
413:talk
398:Keep
383:Dloh
369:talk
349:Keep
339:talk
310:Dloh
293:Dloh
279:talk
207:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
466:.
257:(✉)
231:(✉)
193:TWL
122:– (
821:.
808:)
787:)
768:)
750:)
742:.
729:)
685:)
673:-
659:)
554:•
546:—
537:)
533:•
500:)
490:G5
474:)
415:•
407:—
371:•
363:—
341:)
281:)
247:.
221:.
209:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
52:.
804:(
783:(
764:(
746:(
725:(
681:(
655:(
550:(
529:(
496:(
470:(
411:(
367:(
337:(
277:(
205:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
56:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.