Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doncram (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 30 January 2021 (Michael Sayman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

arked Michael Sayman as reviewed

09:17, 11 November 2018 Sandstein talk contribs del

Michael Sayman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG. Radio Adept (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending WP:SALT. This article was nominated for deletion earlier this month, with an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety just a couple weeks after page deletion. This is a repeat of previous such behavior, when the article was deleted with overwhelming consensus in November 2018, then re-created in its entirety just 3 days later. Radio Adept (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regardless of whether or not canvassing or unknown users have been commenting ignores the points made by these users. There has been legitimate evidence presented of the merit of Sayman work from outside sources. Discounting these because you don't like the post history of the user is an illegitimate argument. The issue here isn't whether or not the users are good, it's about the sources. Sayman has 43 sources, most of which are significant news outlets, reporting significant and notable work he has done. The article should stay. AstronautElvis (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Twice already consensus has been to delete, and the current version is broadly similar to the previous revision (including a great deal of exactly identical content). It's clear there is a concerted effort by someone to force this article onto Wikipedia, which we should not bow to. We should not allow commercial interests to dictate content on Wikipedia, and at this point keeping the article would be doing exactly that. This should be speedied under G4. Waggie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears interesting, notable, covered substantially e.g. in this Insider.Com article (cited in the article). I have no connection at all, found my way here by randomly checking at wp:DRN which mentioned this, after DRN came up on my watchlist. I regularly participate in AFDs especially about historic places. I will say, I am rather suspicious about 3rd or higher nominations of articles, which often seem, as appears to me in this case, to involve undue harshness/determination by repeated delete-voters to get their way. I can't see previous versions of article, but this seems topic and coverage seems substantial. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]