Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robb Montgomery
- 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 keep (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robb Montgomery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article is full of peacockery and POV, but I still can't see anything that makes him notable. Corvus cornixtalk 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This journo bio is not much different than this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Stockdale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) beside Nicole is a blogger - Montgomery founded a social network four years ago, Visual Editors that brought him global attention within the print and online journalism communities. Suggestions for improving the language and or citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 18, 2008[reply]
- How this compares to other articles is generally irrelevant, as its quite possible the other article should be deleted: Other Stuff Exists. For the language, have a look at Avoid weasel words and Neutral point of view. The main thing you need to do to avoid deletion is show that Montgomery satisfies the notability criteria for people: Notability_(people). In particular you need either to provide multiple reliable sources, that are independent of him, and provide significant coverage of him, or evidence of awards (the article mentions some, but citations are needed), or other evidence of notability. Note that any such evidence should be specific to him, and not just be that he is associated with other notable events, or organisations. Finally, you should look at Citing sources, as citations should generally be used to support specific claims made in the article, using ref tags, as you should be able to see with my edits. A list of references is then generated automatically at the bottom of the article. Silverfish (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spammish and full of poor-quality external links. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing up links. now. Some had expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete User:Kidvibe appears to be a single-purpose account; his only contributions are related to this article, and the only positive contributions to the article are his. This person just doesn't appear notable, and I don't feel the cited sources help. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to start somewhere, right? This is my first Wikipedia entry and the smug reception here by people in this talk queue is certainly cold enough to chill the iced tea on my table. NIce way to treat a newbie. But I digress. All points have been addressed in the critiques - I can't help it if people write DE:ETE and don't follow the links or understand the words.
The ref's are updated - please un-delete this entry -it has been improved to address the chief concerns. Montgomery is notable among professional journalists for his newspaper designs (Chicago Sun-Times and San Francisco Examiner) and the Visual Editors site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The new links add enough outside sources to establish notability. And Please do not bite the newcomers :) --Advocate (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you addressing that comment to? Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly to Kidvibe. But I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more info. Evidently, Kidvibe felt slighted, so I put up that little link. Maybe I should have said Please do not nibble KidVibe. I don't think that the edit history has much to do in this case as the weight of the provided sources, it's a threshold determination and I see this one as making it across the doorstep. But as for Kidvibe, "...extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view." I see that kind of care here, and wanted to make the newcomer feel welcome.--Advocate (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's biting when a user with the same name as the website that the article's subject is about writes an article about a non-notable person, and a neutrally-worded deletion nomination and notification on the user's Talk page are added? Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to answer any further than I have.--Advocate (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your definition of biting. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my definition, I get it from the articles I referenced. Let me repeat: I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. Read this and this for more info. And I wouldn't say that calling an article full of vanity and pompousness is neutrally-worded. Ask KidVibe how he felt, I can't really help you further.--Advocate (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I ever accuse them of being a single-purpose account? I did accuse them of having a conflict of interest, but that's pretty obvious. Corvus cornixtalk 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my definition, I get it from the articles I referenced. Let me repeat: I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. Read this and this for more info. And I wouldn't say that calling an article full of vanity and pompousness is neutrally-worded. Ask KidVibe how he felt, I can't really help you further.--Advocate (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your definition of biting. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to answer any further than I have.--Advocate (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's biting when a user with the same name as the website that the article's subject is about writes an article about a non-notable person, and a neutrally-worded deletion nomination and notification on the user's Talk page are added? Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly to Kidvibe. But I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more info. Evidently, Kidvibe felt slighted, so I put up that little link. Maybe I should have said Please do not nibble KidVibe. I don't think that the edit history has much to do in this case as the weight of the provided sources, it's a threshold determination and I see this one as making it across the doorstep. But as for Kidvibe, "...extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view." I see that kind of care here, and wanted to make the newcomer feel welcome.--Advocate (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you addressing that comment to? Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to improvement efforts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:36, 19 August 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.