- 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. The debate comes down to the assessment of the sources, are they independent reliable sources as required? There is no consensus on that Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff Mach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Living subject does not appear to meet notability requirements for biographies. Sources are unreliable or local-only coverage of events. While one or two of the events involved may be notable, notability is not inherited. There is inadequate reliable third-party biographical material about the subject to support a fully-cited standalone article with significant biographical content at this time. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although there are a lot of hits, there are no reliable, secondary sources coming up via Google Web search. Nothing in news or news archive either. Books search was a little bit tougher, as there is somebody by the same name who is involved in a notable conservation agency. There were also a lot of Google Books hits in German, but unless the Germans are huge on steampunk I doubt they were referring to the same Jeff Mach. (I was recently chastised on AfD for not recognizing the notability of an actress because ALL of the sources for this actress were in Spanish, so let me add the disclaimer that I do not speak German!) Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A brief look through the history of this page shows that it is mostly edited by a single user (except for bot edits and edits relating to deletion), which makes me think it may be a case of WP:SPIP. MisterRichValentine (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a case of WP:SPIP. I am not Jeff Mach, nor does the article contain "self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, [or] product placement." Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who has also been accused of being Jeff Mach for editing this and other articles, I also felt the need to publicly state that I am not Jeff Mach, and this is not a case of WP:SPIP. Centerone (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have documented the reliability of the cited secondary sources in the Talk page. In addition, I have added references from the Boston Globe and Philadelphia Enquirer. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, those articles are really about the events. They do not have substantive biographical content. They support the notability of the event and support mentioning Mach in the articles about these events, they do not support a standalone article on Mach. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The subject is notable. The subject is a creative professional and entertainer. He has been responsible for the creation of notable events and innovative formulas for events that have garnered him both recognition of his peers, and those in the field. One such example is being a guest of honor at Philcon which is the oldest science fiction convention held by the 2nd oldest science fiction fandom society. If such a recognition by a venerable organization in a niche community doesn't count, I'm not sure what would; this was not his only such honor. Furthermore it has been claimed that lack of discussion of personal details in interviews with him gives the impression that he himself is not notable -- however, he is the creator or co-creator of such events and other works. When people interview a director, author, songwriter, or other such creative individual, do people focus on minute historical details of their personal lives, or do we primarily ask about the creation? I'd say people tend to ask about the creation and the creative process; is it wrong to be so focused? The article is well-cited. Could it use more citations? Sure, but one can say that about every article. Centerone (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He may well be the remarkable person you describe, but per WP:BIO, we wait for reliable secondary sources to say so, in multiple instances of significant coverage, not just brief mentions or quotes from him. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The multiple, published, reliable sources clearly show this to be a notable figure as an event promoter in the "Steampunk" movement. The one thing lacking is substantial coverage of him as an individual, but to my mind GNG has nevertheless been met in this case. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThe editors of the article have included several references which do not appear to be reliable sources (a Youtube video, two poems, one broken url, an advertisement for his opera) along with some articles in reliable sources which help establish notability for the steampunk genre but only have a brief quote from, or brief mention of, or passing reference to Mach himself. The sum does not quite add up to satisfying WP:BIO, Mach is already covered in Widdershins, LLC and in Steampunk World's Fair, and perhaps should be mentioned in the Steampunk article. Edison (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the sources provided are both reliable and provided significant coverage of Mach so GNG has not been met. Notability is not inherited by Mach from steampunk. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2012 (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.