Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael William-Paul

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael William-Paul

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

Vast tracts of this vanity bio are completely unverifiable, or can only be traced back to the subject's website. All secondary coverage I can find is either self-generated or completely negative. Mostly written by accounts with COI, I believe it thoroughly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nomination. (Though I'll be sorry that WP would lose at least one nugget: he found himself emerged in pop culture.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The best my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found was this passing mention where he was an event organizer and supporter. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A grotesque of vanity for a subject whose notability is not evidenced by substantial coverage from independent, reliable coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2015 (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.