Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Merlin

Chip Merlin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chip Merlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

*Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.Sailbanshee (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Sports career coverage is notable and significant and subject has notable legal and writing career with well cited sourcesAnatomyoffear (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

*Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.Captbloodrock (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…Captbloodrock (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.Captbloodrock (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Sail magazine and the Tampa Bay Times article (the first two cited) are each WP:SIGCOV. There appears to be some WP:REFBOMB going on here and improvements need to be made, but there is enough here for this to be kept. Let'srun (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you are talking about this Tampa Bay Times reference which is a routine announcement about his law firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Article is well sourced and subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both his law career but especially sports athletic career, which the article documents and cites well with appropriate citations.IOProfessor (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous keep !votes. Will strike through the sock comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• User:Anatomyoffear and User:IOProfessor were listed among suspected socks of Captbloodrock but unconfirmed, therefore I did not strike through their remarks. Note, though, that IOProfessor's only Wikipedia contribution ever was to chime in on this specific AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  It’s actually possible for multiple people to disagree with you. I am in fact my own whole and separate person, and I can see perfectly well that you’re wrong and doubling down. Let me know if you’d like me to send you a picture of myself and today’s newspaper to prove that I’m a real person and not an evil doppelganger or a figment of your fevered paranoia. 2603:9001:953F:178:B824:2ECE:2DE1:DC7 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  If I were doubling down, I would not have reopened this AfD. This is the opposite of that. In 16 years as an admin, this is the first time I have ever been persuaded to reopen an AfD, and it is because I read the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Captbloodrock. Incidentally, who are you, unsigned user? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)