Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael White (writer)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael White (writer) (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)
I've declined a WP:CSD#A7 on this as the article does have some news sources such as this one, so he's not completely and utterly insignificant, but neverthless I don't believe there's enough significant coverage to make a full article out him. In particular, this Guardian source is a blatant bit of puffery, since I get the impression that the article just picked a handful of any students it could muster opinion from, and printed them as part of a piece on something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- agree Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG criteria Paul W (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (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.