Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stelzner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Stelzner[edit]
- Mike Stelzner (redirect page)
- Stelzner (redirect page)
- Michael stelzner (redirect page)
- Michael A Stelzner (redirect page)
- Michael A. Stelzner (redirect page)
Looks like a vanity page -- and seems to be one, judging from its history page -- Mareklug talk 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Yeah, obvious vanity/advertising page. Ehurtley 08:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now, I think this might actually be notable, despite the apparent self-created vanityness of it right now. But I'm not going to try and verify it on a weekday night at 3am. Maybe later. Grandmasterka 09:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – definitely vanity/advertising as above. Moreover, any article using the phrase "one of the world's leading authorities" needs corroboration, as do phrases like "most downloaded guide to ...". As of now, this sounds like the claims I get in pop-up ads. Finally, if this guy is such a genius marketer, presumably he could write the article in such a way that we would be compelled to consider it important? ;) --Deville (Talk) 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanspamvertisement. Bucketsofg 15:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As one of the worlds leading spam-ad-vanity pages. Marcus22 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think an article on this guy's website, WhitePaperSource, would pass WP:WEB. The salvagable material should be kept there. Then delete the vanispamcruft. Alba 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and send author a white paper on what constitutes encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 18:07, 24 March 2006 (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.