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 no consensus. Nakon 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Regional Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, with one exception, all WP:PRIMARY, all captive Microsoft sources. The one exception, an SDTimes article, isn't even really about this regional director program. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article is overflowing with peacock language, e.g., describing the subject as "a vital link between Microsoft and the developer community". Msnicki (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to be a notable distinction. Reliable sources appear to exist: [1], [2], for instance. ~KvnG 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, both of these sources are published by Microsoft, making them WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that these are published by Microsoft? ~KvnG 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're right, they're not published by Microsoft. But the reality isn't any better. Neither is a WP:RELIABLE source as we use the term and thus, neither is helpful in establishing notability. From their About page, "DevPro is a large and established community of developers, delivering comprehensive, independent content covering the entire Microsoft stack as well as Open Source and Docker initiatives." And from his About page, "TheWindowsClub, is conceptualized, created & owned by Anand Khanse, a Microsoft MVP since 2006, and an end-user Windows enthusiast." Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say keep. Blogs and other material self-published by experts may be reliable. See WP:USERG. ~KvnG 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Here's what it says at WP:USERG: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." How does that support you? I think we can use an WP:SPS as reliable for some purposes, e.g., a USENET post to date when Bash was released, but we never use an SPS for establishing notability because the essence of notability is that others not connected to the subject took notice and that they did so in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That's not what you have here. Msnicki (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. The first source is not clearly a blog and you have selectively quoted WP:USERG leaving out, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." ~KvnG 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that Anand Khanse and the unnamed authors at DevPro are established experts? Can you write the articles first? Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to be surprised there are not WP articles on these subjects? You don't need to be notable to be an expert. ~KvnG 06:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you weren't offering them as just any experts, these are supposed to be established experts whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Since there are no articles on these experts, perhaps you can point me at their published work in reliable third-party publications. Then again, maybe you can't. Msnicki (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2015 (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.