Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Messenger

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

Smells of conflict of interest and promotional promo spam. Advertorial with hyperlinks in main article body text linking to commercials and advertisement type promotional videos. Article fails to demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject himself. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also similar problems by author with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other people named Michael Messenger who look like they have a shot at notability, but I don't see any coverage in reliable sources about this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (marginal keep on Victoria Nixon) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, with nothing that can support passing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better satisfying the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 April 2016 (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.