Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Kearns

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Kearns[edit]

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

a candidate for political office does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. A well-written piece of self-aggrandizement but he would appear not to be notable in our space Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN indeed. More generally, I could not find enough to fulfill WP:BIO criteria. An interesting sounding life, but not notable.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom and TorC-2. Only important source in the ref is San Diego Magazine but he's not mentioned in the article (ref should be cut). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any reason why he should be notable. A perfect example of an article that aggrandises a really rather insignificant person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among all the wikipuffery it's hard to discern a claim of significance of any kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2013 (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.