Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Duriez

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duriez

I can find evidence that this person exists but no reliable sources (or any unreliable ones for that matter) to back up claims of notability enough to meet WP:BIO. [1] [2] [3] nancy ^(talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article, the subject was a professor University of Edinburgh, but there does not seem to be substantial evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I checked to see if spelling the first name as "Michael" rather than "Mike" changes any google results but that does not seem to be the case. A plain Google search for "Mike Duriez" gives just 5 hits[4], and for "Michael Duriez" 55 hits[5] that appear to be false positives. Similarly, in GoogleScholar one gets very little for either spelling [6][7] and the same for GoogleBooks[8][9]. Appears to fail both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:V, indistinguishable from hoax. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duriez is referred to as a "tutor" in the Ptolemy Dean bio (User:PtolemyDean is the creator of the Mike Duriez bio). The addition of Duriez to the Dean bio was by User:Obscure items some of whose edits to that article have been reverted as vandalism, e.g. [10], others are clearly not serious [11] [12], note resemblance of these edits to User:PtolemyDean's [13]. I think this Bio is a hoax, and extension of vandalism/joke edit BSing on Ptolemy Dean.

Delete per above reasoning. Professors should have plenty of RS documentation. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (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.