Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Michod

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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Michod

Alec Michod (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Gets several google hits, but was written by a user named Amichod. Take a look at his userpage. Coincidence? FusionMix 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the user page which says that a similar user cannot author an article; since this is not spam or advertising but encyclopedia-worth fact, it should be included, if in an edited version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amichod (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Please read our conflict of interest policy to determine how you should proceed in future. While it is not strictly forbidden, it is always a problem when you edit your own article. (As your user page names you as the subject, I feel free to make this association.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While author may have a COI, seems notable. There is secondary source coverage of his work by the Village Voice here, by the Chicago Sun-Times here, and another here. He also writes book reviews for the New York Times. See here and here. KnightLago (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per KnightLago. It appears that WP:NOTABILITY can be established. --Sharkface217 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, borderline, but there appears to be sufficient coverage to establish notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO notability guideline, that article has no secondary independent sources. It's basically making an advertisement about the author. Alec Michod is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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.