Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Benjamin Mimms

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. Consensus amongst policy-based arguments is clearly for deletion. Michig (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Benjamin Mimms

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Should have been Speedy. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just met this founder - historically significant, an unpublicized genius. I cited sources - if you need anything more, let me know. --Rhinotate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is provided that this person is notable. Pretty much every source provided is written by Mimms himself or has nothing to do with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please note that "unpublicized" generally means you fail the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what is the fuss about? "well publicized" is not a synonym for "notable" -- as a side note, the article does not violate any of the points made in the "Why we have these requirements" section of notability requirements 128.54.165.10 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)— 128.54.165.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
According to the people above, the sources are either primary sources (written by the man or his employers) or don't discuss him (if they're being used to cite a claim of notability, they must discuss him at some depth). Thus, your claim above is bollocks, and your editing history starts and ends at this AfD. SPA tagged. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of genuine notability, which means significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. We do not have that here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. (And the article is distinctly promotional in tone, too.) A speedy deletion tag was removed, but I think it could well have been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and I feel the article has a promotional tone as well. Webclient101^talk 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse smelly socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fine. Notable over here at UCSD. Falls under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." of WP:BIO 169.228.148.144 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.148.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and the article still fails to meet notability requirements. reddogsix (talk)

I could go through the requirements line by line and tell you exactly how this entry meets them - I'm through wasting my time defending this entry - this guy is legitimately notable, if you want to discredit yourself by denying this, you go right ahead. In the meantime, I am going to enjoy my private knowledge. I hope the community continues to defend this obviously notable character. Good night. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...again, the article still fails to meet notability requirements. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see a problem with this. Sources are clearly cited. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.182.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with 169.228.148.144 - this person invented new techniques. 69.229.28.31 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 69.229.28.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know what reddogsix is talking about. Mimms crowdsourcing and regulatory approval system alone is well known, at least in SoCal. 128.54.114.84 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entry meets all the requirements. Looks like an overzealous mod. 128.54.178.184 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Moderator overstepping his bounds. JBM is a notable figure. 128.54.96.168 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry reddogsix, disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of independent, verifiable sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. 128.54.165.10 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, ANON is a compliment. Secondly, the support here is more than solid. It is appalling that one rogue moderator has such control, horrifying that Wikipedia has fallen so far - What are you looking for, NYT articles, popular press? Publicity may correlate with notability, but notability is not purely causative to publicity. In other words, biographies may be notable, just not well publicized. The two do not go hand in hand. The sources are here to the definition of notability. The subject of this entry is famous - everyone I know knows this subject and if they don't they soon will - inventor of the Omega Interpreter and 8 firms. Keep in mind this is ONE moderator claiming lack of notability and priming the community the wrong way. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did reddogsix even bother to read the sources and connect the dots? Reading this above, I suspect not: "I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" Let another person moderate this please so that we may reach a balanced decision. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there is no moderator here. Just like all the apparent socks I am voicing an opinion. The comments here will be reviewed by an admin and they will decide the fate of the article. As I indicated above, this is not a vote nor a count of keep vs. delete. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2013 (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.