Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (3rd nomination)

Michael Sayman

arked Michael Sayman as reviewed

09:17, 11 November 2018 Sandstein talk contribs del

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG. Radio Adept (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending WP:SALT. This article was nominated for deletion earlier this month, with an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety just a couple weeks after page deletion. This is a repeat of previous such behavior, when the article was deleted with overwhelming consensus in November 2018, then re-created in its entirety just 3 days later. Radio Adept (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 ^{(Talk to Purplehippo458)} 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 ^{(Talk to Purplehippo458)} 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 ^{(Talk to Purplehippo458)} 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how similar is this to the previous one Radio Adept? It might be eligible for WP:G4 and may even need WP:SALT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I read through it and it's pretty much identical to the previous one, if not entirely identical. It could be WP:SELFPROMOTE for User:Purplehippo458, based on contribution history. I agree on needing WP:SALT. Radio Adept (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the largest news outlets in Bolivia, El Deber, published an entire article about him having COVID-19 after he posted on social media that he had potentially contracted the virus: https://eldeber.com.bo/mundo/michael-sayman-dice-que-probablemente-tenga-coronavirus_169613 I believe this person qualifies as notable at least in Latin America, maybe not in the United States. Purplehippo458 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article's only context for Sayman is he was hired at Facebook at 17 makes this whole topic WP:1E. That is nowhere close to notable according to WP:BLP—otherwise Wikipedia would need an article for the youngest employee of every major company. Also, if you don't mind me asking: What is your relation to Sayman? Radio Adept (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliably sourced articles about Sayman from years before he joined Facebook, and other articles afterward that are unrelated to that part of his life. Over a year before joining Facebook, ABC News published this story about him helping pay for his parents' bills: https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/michael-sayman-16-release-9th-app/story?id=19328187. There is clearly more to his notability than being hired by Facebook at 17, including his involvement in the creation of Instagram Stories https://www.porchlightbooks.com/blog/excerpts/always-day-one which was also written about by Bloomberg News and can be found in the citations I added to his page. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people are hired by tech companies at young ages, and if that was the only notable thing written about him, I would have agreed with you on the case of WP:1E, but in this case I believe he does not fall under that rule. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I met Sayman once at a conference in Bolivia years ago and decided to start exploring Wikipedia when I realized there wasn't an article about him in English, but there was one in Spanish. Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This People (magazine) article talks about his boyfriend and personal life, a year after coming out as gay, and is completely unrelated to him joining Facebook at 17. https://peopleenespanol.com/chica/michael-sayman-talks-about-coming-out/ Purplehippo458 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sayman is a Forbes 30 under 30, I wouldn't delete the article. https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019/consumer-technology/#627e2d7869da. AstronautElvis (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes 30 Under 30 recognizes 600 people/businesses every year. Itself does not confer much notability. Radio Adept (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sayman has been the subject of numerous features and articles and is certainly qualified for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun Sm (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Shaun Sm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Admin comment: It looks very much like there has been WP:CANVASSing here, as some of the above "comments" are by editors who haven't edited in years but abruptly reappeared to come here to argue (but, oddly, not !vote) for keeping this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This version of the article has significant changes from the previous one. Many of these additions, including section 'Revelations in "Always Day One: How the Tech Titans Plan to Stay on Top Forever"' with a quote about Sayman from Mark Zuckerberg, contribute to his notability by highlighting additional areas of interest by the public on his influence in the tech industry and on products, such as Instagram Stories where the previous versions of this article did not. Furthermore, additional edits that cite his awards, autobiography, and political activism provide deeper context to his influence in Latin American culture beyond the role he had at Facebook. Purplehippo458 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the recent additions from the past few hours. But I'm not sure how his quote being used in a book and him being a fan of Bernie Sanders confer any additional notability. Radio Adept (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of whether or not canvassing or unknown users have been commenting ignores the points made by these users. There has been legitimate evidence presented of the merit of Sayman work from outside sources. Discounting these because you don't like the post history of the user is an illegitimate argument. The issue here isn't whether or not the users are good, it's about the sources. Sayman has 43 sources, most of which are significant news outlets, reporting significant and notable work he has done. The article should stay. AstronautElvis (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Twice already consensus has been to delete, and the current version is broadly similar to the previous revision (including a great deal of exactly identical content). It's clear there is a concerted effort by someone to force this article onto Wikipedia, which we should not bow to. We should not allow commercial interests to dictate content on Wikipedia, and at this point keeping the article would be doing exactly that. This should be speedied under G4. Waggie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making an accusation of commercial influence on this article is a very serious allegation to make. If there is solid evidence of commercial influence beyond the deletion history, this should be presented. Otherwise, this claim seems questionable, especially if considering the section on Lifestage. Lifestage was a failed project and a public embarrassment to Facebook and its engineers. A publicist would not put this information in an article. Therefore, this allegation seems unlikely, and asking the deletion process to be expedited under G4 would be unwise. AstronautElvis (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Wikipedia reference search link at the top of the AFD, and among the first few results are reliable sources giving him significant coverage. https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/michael-sayman-16-release-9th-app/story?id=19328187 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/facebook-s-21-year-old-wunderkind-sayman-leaves-for-google https://people.com/chica/latino-internet-genius-is-millionaire-at-21/ Dream Focus 23:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, and articles clearly sourced from interviews (as all three above are) are not suitable for establishing notability. Per WP:PRIMARY Waggie (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Reliable sources giving coverage passes the general notability guidelines. Primary sources are only concerned with verification of information in the article itself, not in determining its notability. Dream Focus 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears interesting, notable, covered substantially e.g. in this Insider.Com article (cited in the article). I have no connection at all, found my way here by randomly checking at wp:DRN which mentioned this, after DRN came up on my watchlist. I regularly participate in AFDs especially about historic places. I will say, I am rather suspicious about 3rd or higher nominations of articles, which often seem, as appears to me in this case, to involve undue harshness/determination by repeated delete-voters to get their way. I can't see previous versions of article, but this seems topic and coverage seems substantial. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. Certainly notable, since 88 people per day wanted to read about him last year. Why do we want to keep sourced info from readers who want to learn? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DRN Volunteer Comment There has been WP Canvasing at the DRN page in favor of keeping the article. I have no opinion on keeping this article or not because I have not reviewed the source- but I thought it was fair to tell people this went on. 2 different editors opened 2 different DRN cases asking people to come here and vote keep. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That already mentioned. Where is the DRN page you speak of? You should link to it. I saw this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which I have on my watchlist, the (3rd nomination) part standing out. Dream Focus 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]