Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael P. Waddell

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. Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Waddell

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

)

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

Article appears to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. Just quickly looking, there appears to be some RS coverage here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and added a couple of them to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that part of the problem here is that the article as it currently stands is mis-titled;
  WP:COMMONNAME. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per edits by Ejgreen77.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of the sources are currently routine business hiring announcements. Fails
  WP:GNG and is a glorified resume. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Between what's already been added to the article and what's available here, I think there's enough available to meet
  WP:GNG. The article is badly in need of a thorough rewrite, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Even a search with Mike Waddell instead of Michael P. Waddell only appears to return results of routine hiring announcements. Are you able to share some specific sources that pass both
  resume and thats what this is. Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See the sources listed by Bagumba further down in this discussion. Obviously, the article is in need of a thorough overhaul (some of which has already started since this discussion began), but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue (i.e. Deletion is not cleanup). Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I’m going with delete because when you take out the vain attempt to deceive readers and make this article appear meatier than it really is by copying the infobox into the lede, all that’s really here is a regional source. Subject has not in any way passed the general notability threshold at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft. Other than the source issues, it doesn't follow the wiki conventions. The creator should draft it first. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG. One of those cases where you need to search with keywords from his former positions, as his name is semi-generic and they usually refer to him as "Mike" and not current article title with "Michael". Significant coverages not already in the article includes pieces from The State-Register Journal, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Florida Daily.—Bagumba (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2019 (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.