Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Salda

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salda[edit]

Contested PROD. Reason given: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Michael Salda – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability Zoo Fari 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who has done his homework. The lack of coverage in web sources, coupled with no evidence of non-web sources, would seem to clearly indicate this person does not pass WP:N or WP:BIO inclusion criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ACADEMIC standards -- and the prod was not genuinely contested. That's a sock of a banned user (User:Azviz) evading his block. I've just been reverting those per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: when you say contested, do you mean earlier, or that *you* contest it, ZooFari? If you contest it why list it here immediately after? If you mean earlier, didn't you see the note? DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this IP contested it, and another user disagreed, and then the PROD was removed again. So I listed it here. Zoo Fari 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yeah... sock of a banned user doing block evasion, the deprodding again should have again been reverted per WP:BAN. But it looks like it'll be deleted with an AFD, which is better precedent in case someone tries to add it again. DreamGuy (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried several searches to turn up notability for his Cinderella project and his work on Arthurian animation, but didn't find anything convincing. The biggest response for the Cinderella project came from regular Google rather than Google scholar, books, or news, there were less than 400 hits (not a big number for regular Google), and a large fraction of the hits seem to be schools that mention the project as an example of how to cite a web site rather than for any of its content. And in any case if the project were notable it would argue more for an article about it than about him. In the absence of evidence in the article that he passes WP:PROF, and not finding any myself, I don't see a rationale for continuing to have this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (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.