Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Salfino

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. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salfino[edit]

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

Page that was recently blanked by its subject with the rationale "want to delete page". As he wasn't the page's only author, it doesn't qualify for speedy on that basis — however, he was the page's original author, thus raising conflict of interest issues. The page also isn't particularly well-sourced and doesn't make a particularly strong claim of notability, and thus despite not qualifying for speedy it is still a fairly clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is a syndicated columnist, in the Wall Street Journal, among others. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing much seems to have been written about him, so I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cut and dry per nom. Also: "He believes that looking beyond conventional statistics allows for better performance projections in both baseball and football."; says who? Judicatus | Talk 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a columnist for a major newspaper does not in and of itself establish notability, and there is little reliable sourcing that discusses him. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 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.