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. So Why 09:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Randy Charles Morin

Randy Charles Morin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Other than the fact that the article was created by the subject himself, there are problems with the references: those about him becoming chairman of the RSS advisory board were written by another member of that board and do not appear to have been published anywhere other than on the RSS Board website or on that other board member's personal website; the evidence of his daughter's YouTube cosmetics subscribers does not contribute to a notability claim for the subject himself (the article he created on her was speedily deleted); the ESPN Zone article is not about the subject, and only quotes him; the Reuters article does not even mention his name anywhere; there are no viable Google News hits on his name (those that do show up are for other individuals with the same name or are not "news"). I had made this a speedy deletion candidate as promotional, but this tag was removed so am now bringing it to AfD. KDS4444 ( talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: As someone who works on improving the entries for technologists involved in the creation of Internet standards, I believe Morin meets the standard of notability. He chaired the RSS Advisory Board that publishes RSS, created the RSS Auto-Discovery specification, founded a startup that grew to 50,000 users before being sold to NBC and authored a popular Wiley book on Windows application servers. The article needs improvements to its sourcing and tone, and I'm happy to work on that. Peterkiesler ( talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

...Which all sounds good— can you provide some evidence that he has been the subject of reliable independent verifiable non-trivial coverage in multiple published secondary sources? I was not able to find any of these, at least not during my initial search. KDS4444 ( talk) 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- an unremarkable business executive; notability not established. The article even includes a quote from an NBC press release:

• NBC digital media executive George Kliavkoff said the acquisition would enable the company to "make predictive understandings of what they might be interested in and start learning about RSS!" Etc.

An advertorial at this point; no value to the project. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for major contributions or origination of major technical work--note that this alt standard does not require multiple independent in-depth biographical references. Barely, given that we don't seem to have refs saying more than that "he did it" at best. But also, given his key involvement in multiple things that are each notable ( TalkSports is a bluelink), I think there is a case that he merits an article as making major contributions in multiple areas. Although this is not strictly sufficient by WP:BIO standard, it is by WP:MUSICBIO--he's not a musician, but at least one of his contributory areas is possibly niche enough that we aren't strictly in GNG territory anyway, so I'm looking at the broader spirit of meriting an article as a landing-point intersection of other notable topics. DMacks ( talk) 04:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that there is indeed fluff in here that should be removed, but that doesn't mean the topic itself is intrinsically unsuitable. There's enough here to avoid WP:TNT and AFD isn't for cleanup tasks. DMacks ( talk) 04:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. as above--the technical work is sufficient for notability . I removed some of the fluff. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 17 August 2017 (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.