Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Mutize

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. No actual arguments made to keep the article by the WP:SPA accounts that voted here (and I do mean "voted"). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mutize

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

Non-notable person (he did not invent Six Sigma, although the article makes it sound like it). I can find only a handful of stub business-profile type references. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Update: also note that the "anonymous" IP that has continued working on Joshua Mutize has both removed the AfD template from it, and blanked this page.[reply]

Delete, weak claims to notabilty. His best chance at notability is being a magzine editor, but the magazine itself doesn't appear to be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article Recommended, I agree with Hairhorn. His best chance at notability is as magazine editor, as first black editor. Why should we deny the first black editor his proper notation in the american journalism? (Madisonsmoke (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC). — Madisonsmoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine. Google finds very little information on either the person or the magazine. The article's references are to general information sites and do not mention him at all. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
DO NOT DELETEArticle seem conforming to Wikipedia requirements. ARTICLE RECOMMENDED (JohnMcCormickjr (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC). — JohnMcCormickjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Another sockpuppet vote? Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)::*No Need for personal attacks, Hairhorn.See WikiPolicies(JohnMcCormickjr (talk)).For guide in good discussion, see WP:ATA(TurnWild (talk))[reply]

I don't consider pointing out sock/SPA votes a personal attack. There are a number of keep votes in here from brand new accounts, including your own. Hairhorn (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not seem to be discussed in any reliable third party sources. Mah favourite (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and no decent sources can be found, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Article meets Wiki policies.WP:ATA There is plenty of third party material on this subject. (Tagboard (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC). . — Tagboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP,Do Not DeleteWP:ATA Article confirms to Wiki guidelines and policies. well referenced and good third party sources (TurnWild (talk)). — TurnWild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Comment, WP:ATA is an article listing arguments that are best avoided in deletion discussions, I don't understand how you can use anything on that page to justify keeping an article (in fact one of the things that the page warns against is quoting links without any explanation of how you feel they are relevant in a particular case). Although there are plenty of third party sources in the article I do not see how they show that the subject is notable. The sources are all used to verify facts rather than to show notability. For the purposes of notability the sources need to discuss the subject. Please could you indicate which of the sources you believe confirm the subject's notability. As I say, I do not think that any of them do. Mah favourite (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:ATA I disagree, subject is being discussed enough in other third part sources. Subject article is notable and consistent with other numerous articles already on wiki. From article history,I see that this article has received a tremendous amount of editing by other editors,and has improved from the original author.Do Not Delete!(Tagboard (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, you have linked to WP:ATA again but I do not understand which part you think is relevant, please elaborate. Also, as I said before I would be interested to know exactly which sources you think are suitable to show notability.

Delete I can't find anything much either. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Subject is notable and verifiable through third party sources. Article is well referenced and nuetral.I agree that subject is not too famous, but's not the point, there is enough information to establish notability per Wiki guidelines.(Lovewriting (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC). — Lovewriting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Sorry, there isn't. He's a copy editor, but that's just a person who corrects copy for mistakes. He's a surveyor, but he hasn't surveyed anything notable and isn't well known in the field. All your claims about his parentage are unsourced, and your math is off: if he was born in 1969, his 21st birthday was not in 1991. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article" Subject is evidently notable.Do not delete this article. (Globalelement (talk))5:12pm,19 December 2009 — Globalelement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment, As some friendly advice to the keep voters in this discussion, do you realise that anyone can click on your username and see when your account was created and all of the contributions that you have made? And also that the closing editor of this AfD is unlikely to take much notice of brand new accounts created sequentially on the same day and then used solely to edit the article and comment in this debate? So you might want to stop wasting your time. And maybe read WP:SOCK. Mah favourite (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone whose account is new? Wiki is a public colloborative environment, and everyone has a freedom to comment whether new or old. What matters is to keep this discussion as health and fair as possible. Your comments as well as 'Hairhorn' seem to be trying to intimidate contributors as brand new accounts and thats accusation is not a health debate. Its not about winning votes, its about an article's facts. (Globalelement (talk))6:24pm, December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am not saying that any valid user should not be allowed to comment (I have not been editing wikipedia for long myself). However using sockpuppets to comment in debates is not allowed and can lead to the user being blocked from wikipedia. What I am saying, in case I did not make it clear, is that the new single purpose accounts that have been voting keep in this debate are so obviously sockpuppets that it is quite amusing that you think there is any chance that no one will notice. Sorry for not assuming good faith, if you can explain how a series of brand new users all happened to create accounts one after the other on the same day and then chose solely to edit this article and comment in this AfD discussion supporting the same point of view then I will retract my accusation. I haven't reported this because I don't know how to and it is so laughably obvious in this case that it doesn't seem worth the effort. Mah favourite (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (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.