Christopher Michel: Interesting and multi-faceted American photographer, entrepreneur and writer.  Notable enough to be artist-in-residence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine .  And yes, article needs some editing and refs.  Vysotsky ( talk ) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Photography ,  and United States of America .  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete - changing ! vote to keep per WP:HEY after improvements made by Sj and Drmies .  It has been improved with the addition of reliable sources and cleaned up.  - Not one of the sources used in the article are independent of the subject.  All I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media, his own website, LinkedIn, and more primary sources.  What I am not finding are the usual coverage for notable artists and photographers, such as works in notable exhibitions, reviews of his work, or work held in notable museum or national gallery collections.  I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia , indeffed on multiple language Wikipedias for cross-wiki spamming and socking which may strongly indicate UPE .  Neverthless, this photographer does not meet WP:PHOTOGRAPHER nor WP:GNG criteria for inclusion as a notable artist.  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not quite sure how to respond but want to provide a bit more color: my images and articles have been used in countless publications (including covers), album covers, seen by millions of people, and been the subject of many articles.  My work has been covered extensively (USA Today, The Daily Beast, etc etc).  I was also a columnist for the Naval Institute, photo editor at large for the Bold Italic, and have been sent on assignment for Outside Magazine, IDEO, etc etc from the edge of space, both poles....  My latest book is being co-written with Pico Iyer.   I was also the Dalai Lama's photographer on one of his US visits.   I was also the Ambassador for one of Leica's latest cameras and recently finished a nationwide speaking tour for them.  I lead photo trips in extreme locations and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops.  My work has also been in shows -- it's not held by any museum permanent collections but that's typical for photojournalists.   I'm also the founder of Military.com, Affinity Labs, and Nautilus Ventures.   In the early days, Wikipedia editors were scraping my creative commons flickr images and auto uploading them.  I'm now spending my time assisting the National Academies to help raise the profile of scientists, engineers and medical professionals in society.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Forgot to add that one of my photos was the runner-up to the commons picture of the year in 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/Results Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that image was also featured on the homepage of National Geographic.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a few relevant links: Washington Post The Photoblographer Outside Magazine Archives National Academies : Daily Mail Daily Beast Smithsonian USA Today Caltech Atlas Obscura Daily Mail Antarctica New York Times The Bold Italic Psychology Today New York Times on Leica Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Leica Camera Leica Camera Interview Natural World Safaris Guides Santa Fe Workshops Instructors Esalen Instructors Union of Concerned Scientists Bios Something Ventured Podcast Long Now Foundation Speech US Naval Institute Article Archive Protagonist in the Intelligent Entrepreneur Author The Military Advantage Author 90 Degrees South Cmichel67 ( talk ) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to me that we have two broad issues here — one is odd targeting of me by a wikipedia editor named AncientWalrus and the other is related to issues with my wikipedia entry, primarily having to do with notability and payment.  Context: For the past three years, I have been working full-time as the inaugural artist in residence at The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine.   I work for free.   Essentially, I fly around the country and make portraits of people that have made significant impacts in sciences, engineering & medicine — I license all those portraits with a creative commons license and make them freely available to the world.   I also update their wikipedia pages when their photos could benefit from a more recent or higher quality image.   You can see some of those images here: https://www.christophermichel.com/New-Heroes/National-Academies-Portraits/ and a description of my appointment here: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/03/national-academies-of-sciences-engineering-and-medicine-name-inaugural-artist-in-residence A week or so ago, I was leading a photo trip in Greenland when I received a message from AncientWalrus (whom I don’t know) asking if I was being paid to put those portraits up on wikipedia.   I said no.   Shortly thereafter, he marked my wikipedia page for deletion, questioned whether I had paid people to update my page, and deleted me as the founder of military.com (on the military.com page).   He claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know).  1.  I am the founder of Military.com — there are countless references to this on the web — including appearances on CNN, news publications, my book etc (I referenced these on the links on the deletion page)  2.  I never paid anyone to do anything.   Nor do I receive payments for my work.   I do all this to give back.   To help elevate scientists in society.  3.  In the early days, wikimedia was scraping my flickr page for alll the creative commons content.   I had nothing do do with selecting or uploading  4.  Over the 20 years since I started military.com, I tried to update my wikipedia page to keep it accurate.  Notability: Notability is a subjective concept.   Here is my bio as background: https://www.christophermichel.com/About There are two elements here: one is whether I am generally notable.  The other is proving it.  I am generally well known in the entrepreneurial and photography fields.   I am the founder of Military.com, one of the few web 1.0 companies still doing well.   We have 10+ million users and help service members access the benefits of service.   We were one of the first social networks to reach scale.   We continue to be an important source of news and information for the broader military community.   I sold the company to Monster.com.   I then started Affinity Labs, which did the same for nurses, teachers, police officers, etc.   I also sold that company.   I also started a venture capital firm called Nautilus Ventures, which made close to 100 investments.   I wrote a book about Military benefits published by Simon & Schuster.   And my experiences as an entrepreneur were the subject of a book called, The Intelligent Entrepreneur, Published by Holt.   I was asked back to Harvard to be their entrepreneur in residence and given an honorary doctorate by Tiffin University.  In 2008, I became a full time photographer and photojournalist.   I’ve written for many publications, including Outside Magazine and as a columnist for Proceedings.   My photos have been seen by millions and have been used by google as a screensaver, on album covers, magazine covers, front page images in newspapers.   I was a Leica Ambassador and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops, Esalen and Natural World Safaris.   I’ve been interviewed by many podcasters and my work has been the subject of a number of articles and features.   Here’s just one example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901372/Pictures-edge-space-Photographer-riding-U-2-spy-plane-captures-stunning-images-13-miles-Earth.html .  I added a bunch more to my deletion page — although I can see now, they don’t want images where my work appears but articles about me.   Like this: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/07/22/how-photographer-christopher-michel-makes-stunning-soulful-portraits/ or  this https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mesmerizing-photos-of-abandoned-structures-in-the-high-arctic or this https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/national-academies-new-heroes-faculty-portraits or this https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=UO_BALVMepM .  There are many more.   I have exhibited by work but don’t submit for awards (though did receive a 2nd place finish in the wikimedia commons photo of the year — an image that was put on the National Geographic home page.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 03:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Founder of military.com citation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 Cmichel67 ( talk ) 03:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Select Media Interviews: Accidental Creative Interviews Christopher Michel Dark Room Podcast with Photographer Christopher Michel Something Ventured with Chris Michel Kevin Kelly interviews Chris Michel CXO Interviews Chris Michel Long Now Foundation interviews Chris Michel Christopher Michel Opens the LeWeb Conference The Enlightened Executive with Chris Michel Leica Interviews Chris Michel Om Malik interviews Chris Michel AFCEA Interview Chris Michel Cmichel67 ( talk ) 04:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these select media interviews qualify as reliable sources per WP:RS .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I'm clearly not expert at communicating notability for photography - surprising as the appointment with the National Academies I have and qualifications and reputation would seem clear.  I'm not a typical photographer as I mostly work to give back and not for galleries etc.  It would seem that the business angle might be more straightforward!   Cheers Cmichel67 ( talk ) 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] USA Today on Chris Michel Cmichel67 ( talk ) 04:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never claimed this He [AncientWalrus]] claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know).  , Netherzone did.  Thank you for clarifying that you are unpaid.  This has nothing to do with the potential lack of notability.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just reacting to your comment here, "I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia" - sorry if I misunderstood you.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 16:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was a comment made by Netherzone, not by me, see this diff [1] AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry!  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have responded below.  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My page was never created or edited for payment.  I made factual changes to the pages over the years as information changed.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You made all these edits without going through the appropriate pathway for editing with WP:COI : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Christopher_Michel&diff=1036499663&oldid=963970346 You changed wording to sound more flattering, you removed a "citation needed" tag etc.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AncientWalrus , thank for the ping.  Yes that was my comment, I had noticed that the editor who created the article, User:Russavia, has been globally blocked for socking.  But the real smoking gun that this article was created purely for promotional purposes WP:PROMO , WP:NOT is this: [2] .  I have counted over 170 photographs depicting this photographer, many of them are vanity shots.  To my mind, this is a sure sign of conflict of interest editing , promotional editing or undisclosed paid editing.  Something's not right here.  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  That may be the pattern you've observed but it is not happening here.   As per last search, there were 11,912 photos that I made on commons.   The majority are auto-uploads from my flickr account of images created with a creative commons license.   I did not initiate these uploads or review them (and they include personal photos of me and other family and friends).   They were done by a wikipedia editor.   There are good images and bad, personal and professional images in my flickr.   I believe that practice has stopped.   For many many years, the only images I'm uploading are very high quality images of notable people -- astronauts, nobel laureates, authors - images I make for free and give away under a commons license for the public good.   For example, I just spend the day with Dr Tony Fauci and made his portrait for the National Academies -- and made the photos available to the commons.   I do this as a matter of practice.   Just a quick search on commons will be illustrative.   Versions of all of these are now on the commons and have been used in many entries.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here is the big gallery of scientist & engineer portraits that I use for the commons.  They are all downloadable and usable with a creative commons attribution license.   I do this for free.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (each thumbnail is a gallery) Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The metadata tells a slightly different story, it states that you hold the copyright - "all rights reserved" along with your name and website.  However, it seems someone must have provided your permission for Russavia to upload them under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.  Netherzone ( talk ) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't speak to the metadata (could have been created in camera) but all of my uploads are licensed creative commons attribution.   And also listed that way on Flickr.   What happened many years ago with Russavia and other editors is opaque to me - but none of it was done with anything but good intentions.  This conversation is seeming intent on punishing me in some way -- rather than trying to help me and the National Academies better contribute to the community.  One would think that our serious dedication to providing high quality photography to commons would be easy to observe -- and would be something to praise not create an environment where people who don't understand all the intricacies of wikipedia and are made to feel badly and are punished.  Enforcement of rules is important but creating an environment of generosity, kindness, and civility with the big picture in-mind would seem paramount.   I'm trying my best!  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cmichel67 , I totally get that you are here in good faith, and please rest assured that no one is wanting or trying to punish you.  The encyclopedia has a labyrinth of guidelines and policies that exist for one main reason (at least IMHO): to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia.  These "rules" if you will, have been drafted over many years collaboratively by the community thru the process of consensus.  Some of those guidelines have to do with notability, and how it is established for biographies of living persons (and other subjects), and some are specific to their field of practice.  Some of our policies are in place so that the encyclopedia is not used/deployed in certain ways.  Others have to do with what constitutes an independent, secondary, reliable source, and significant coverage therein.  And others have to do with COI.  If these structures were not in place every single garage band in the world would have a WP article about them, as would every person out there looking for a job would want one, and every single advertising/PR agency would be clambering for a high-profile free advertising platform read by millions.  So periodically we analyze the contents of the encyclopedia.  That is why the editors in this discussion are scrutinizing the article that was put forth here.  Let the AfD process unfold naturally, the community will decide the best path forward.  Your input is welcome, but you don't solely get to decide the outcome.  I hope that helps...!  Netherzone ( talk ) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Echoing @ Netherzone : please take this discussion and the article tagging in good faith.  Thanks for your tremendous contribs to Commons over the yeras!  We are sometimes harder on contributors than others, out of a desire not to show preference; this is not at all personal, and certainly no reflection on the quality of your work.  – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you!  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Few if any articles about the individual.  The CBC article is a photo of hot air balloons in Egypt, not the subject of the article, just added as an aside.  Working photojournalist it appears.  No awards won, no articles about his owrk.  Heck one of my photos was 7th place in Wiki Loves Monuments a few years back, I'm nowhere near notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fact, there are many articles about my work Here and here and here etc.  In addition, I'm the founder of Military.com, one of the notable web 1.0 companies still around and the largest military membership organization.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps this will give more context: Bio Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blogs and the Daily mail are not acceptable sources.  Daily Mail in particular does not fact check or publishes falsehoods, which actually lowers your brand's credentials.  I'd avoid working with them...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , looks notable in more than one dimension.  A rare case of someone with a prolific Commons portfolio who is notable for something other than photography, but the photography seems notable in its own right.  I did a bit of cleanup.  – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you elaborate on how Michel passes GNG?  Can you provide two sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .  Or do you think this is not about GNG but rather a specific photographer criterion?  The majority of the links provided by Michel very obviously violate one of the 3 requirements which means they ought to not count.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure -- the subject seems separately GN for founding and selling two companies (primary coverage in non-fiction work, in nyt + wsj, fellowship); for publishing a reference work that was widely reprinted and used in its field; and for photography work which more recently attracted mention by a range of regional or niche outlets (residency, photo communities, news about two separate events/collections).  I added a few examples to the article for clarity.  – SJ + 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Military .  Netherzone ( talk ) 13:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question for Cmichel67 , I'm wondering if your photographs are held in the permanent collections of any notable museums or national galleries.  If there are two or three verifiable notable collections that would count towards WP:NARTIST criteria #4, it would really help.  I've also added Visual arts, & Military to the delete sort categories to get some more eyes from those WikiProjects.  Netherzone ( talk ) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.   Although my photographs have been used in museums as part of exhibitions, they are not part of any permanent collections that I know of.   That being said, it's not typical that museums collect the work of photojournalists!  There might be some hybrid cases, for example, I just photographed Dr Jennifer Doudna for her official Nobel portrait and have photographed many Nobels and National Academies members whose portraits hang at institutions, like this portrait of Dr Margaret Levi, which hangs at Stanford.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cmichel67 , Is there a CV or resumé somewhere online that would list these?  It would help to analyze the collections to see if they may be equivalent to notable museums or national galleries.  I had a look at your website, but could not find that info there.  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, not that I know of.  The metric for photojournalist is typically where their images appear.   But, I'm different than most other photojournalists in that I give away most of my photography.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , meets GNG and per the appreciated referencing and explanation of sources by Cmichel167.  Someone working on the page can greatly expand it from these, and hopefully Cmichel167 will use his skills at research in editing other Wikipedia articles (but be forewarned, Wikipedia is actually addicting - no joke as Biden would say - so keep that in mind if you do venture out from providing references for your page).  Thanks.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] p.s. correction, Cmichel167 has been active on Wikipedia, and of course on commons.  My fault for not checking editing history.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you for your insight and help Cmichel67 ( talk ) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please pinpoint the references that in your view demonstrate GNG?  There are lots of links and most of them definitely violate at least one of the requirements of a source to count for GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .  It's important to beware that we have someone with a strong COI taking up a lot of space in the discussion.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:ARTIST .  WP:BEFORE shows a lot of social media, which I think should include the subject's uploads to Flickr.  Photographer uploads to FLickr and then uploads to Commons.  Zero curation for this collection that includes a very high percentage of selfies.  Doesn't really matter if he is on top of a mountain, it is still a selfie.   I am not finding in depth discussion on independent reliable sources.  Not in any known collections.  Working photojournalist.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure you use WP:BEFORE correctly here.  I think it means that one should do research before nominating, not that for the deletion discussion only the state at the time of nomination matters.  I agree that it would be good to collect a list of reliable sources to support the notability claims.  The ones I found: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 ( https://archive.is/2whS8 ): Christopher Michel, chief executive of the San Francisco company, makes no bones about the fact that the company is a consumer-oriented business... .  The quote is the only mention of Michel.  Not an in-depth article about Michel.  https://usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/11/meet-photographer-chris-michel/70151730/ Potentially in-depth podcast https://www.thedailybeast.com/capturing-the-extreme-from-deep-space-to-the-north-pole? source=articles&via=rss In-depth profile https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/05/28/on-the-edge-of-space-a-photographers-out-of-this-world-selfie-70000-feet-above-the-earth/ ( https://archive.is/V5n8w ) Single event coverage All the other links posted by Michel in the discussion above are either niche publications/blogs without clear record of qualifying for reliable, or are not independent, or don't cover Michel in detail.  Some of the reliable publications just mention him as author of a picture.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AncientWalrus , while it is not mandatory, it is generally considered best practices for editors to conduct a BEFORE search prior to ! voting.  I've seen this stated many times in deletion discussions.  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone I see.  This is confusing because WP:BEFORE is explicitly about nominations not ! voting.  Thanks for explaining.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  As I mentioned, many years ago a wikipedia editor used a tool to auto upload thousands of my flickr creative commons images into commons.   I had nothing to do with it.   For many years, the images have been highly curated and are unique images of people who have had significant impact in society.  Cmichel67 ( talk ) 01:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's another recent article, if useful: http://www.asee-prism.org/up-close-6/ Cmichel67 ( talk ) 01:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things  1. On September 19th 2023 you uploaded 16 portraits of Robert Sapolsky so I stand by the observation that the photographs are not curated before being added to the Commons.  2. You seem to be conflating your activities as an editor with the discussion surrounding the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the photojournalist Christopher Michel.  Also, you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON .  Best, -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP The attempt to delete this page is completely uncalled for and unjustified.  My read on this is that the attempt to delete the entry on Christopher Michel is an attempt at vandalism.  BWJones ( talk ) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — BWJones ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that BWJones ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion.  Edit request performed by AncientWalrus ( talk ) 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BWJones it is strange that this is your first edit after a 16 year editing hiatus (before you had only 5 edits [3] ) which makes it look like a sleeper account/sock.  Who would not edit for 16 years, remember their login details and come back just now?  Do you have any conflict of interest to declare?  I note that just a few hours ago, an IP made similar allegations on my talk page [4] [5] .  Together with the fact that the subject of the article has heavily edited the article and written the majority of words in this deletion discussion leaves me rather confused.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 23:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to mention, there was also this incident today of an IP impersonating an admin and closing the discussion [6] .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: BWJones appears to have a conflict of interest.  I'm not outing, as BWJones self-declared that they are "Bryan William Jones" here and providing a link to their website here as well where BWJones states Photo above, courtesy of Christopher Michel.  (see https://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/about/ ) which indicates that BWJones knows the subject of the article and may have been canvassed to vote in this AfD.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an attempt at finding reliable sources that discuss the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'll try one more Relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question for @ Cmichel67 : Given that someone who you've taken a photo of (BWJones) has come here to vote keep , have you contacted him or anyone else on or off Wikipedia asking them to come to your support?  See WP:STEALTH .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but it's thin.  The sourcing is OK, IMO, though I just plucked some feathers from the turkey.  It's a good idea for the editor to stay away from the article--and after reading their comments here, and the lengthy and spammy list of links I was ready to vote down the article as well.  Fortunately the article is better, and better referenced, than I feared, but I think it's also a good idea for the editor/subject to stay away from this AfD.  Drmies ( talk ) 00:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - mainly per SJ, and generally agree with Drmies.  Doesn't look like any rules have been broken, but Christopher is perhaps learning that autobiographers get a heaping dose of scrutiny and cynicism.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like to note that editor Netherzone has changed their 'delete' to a 'keep' above, occuring after this relisting.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Randy Kryn !  Yes, I've changed my ! vote based on the excellent improvements to and clean up of the article - it now makes his notability apparent.  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG can be shown with sources available including The Washington Post and short piece in USA Today .  WikiVirus C (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Hey , the sources that have been uncovered since the start of the AfD are sufficient to meet gng .  Jacona ( talk ) 18:10, 28 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep