Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Szporer

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Szporer[edit]

notability - primary reason for article seems to be promotion of book. Article creator keeps removing notability and reference templates without explanation or doing anything to improve article. Suspect COI. Mfield (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Editor is utterly non-responsive to warnings not to delete prod templates, and has been so warned repeatedly. --Good Damon 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make that Speedy delete. This is self-promotional in nature. --Good Damon 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I take back the "speedy", per Jclemens' comment below. The obvious COI editor needs to stop editing it like it belongs to him, but there may in fact be some valid claims of notability. --Good Damon 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see this AfD run its course. The article is but a day old and includes some claims which, if reliably sourced, would indicated notability. Note that COI is not a reason for speedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Talk:Michael_Szporer - for some reason the author does not see the need for a bibliography in an article about an 'author' of 'numerous' works. I quote Mieciousa 'adding a bibliography of publications in several languages would make much ado out of brief bio note.'. Enough said. If Mieciousa is the article subject, which all signs point to, then he's supposed to be a noted academic and he should clearly understand the reasons for bibliographies and citations. Mfield (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did the first WP:PROD. Appears to be stretching quite a bit for WP:BIO — disturbing amount of ambiguous puffery. When challenged with uncited items or Template:unclear on terms like "reader and reviewer", "has been affiliated", or unclear names of colleges, the author has simply removed the tags on the next edit but not edited most of the claims until later, or removed whole claims, or replaced them with claims quite less impressive than what the original words imply. Appears mainly to be some academic with "high positions" in little organizations but only normal positions in major organizations. "Forthcoming book" seems to be the main reason for this article. --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that this article from the first edit until edit 223838516 was mostly WP:COPYVIO from http://www.apacouncil.org/bio&photo/ms.php as well; parts of the copyvio text remain for quite a while in later versions also. Doesn't that require some sort of admin intervention? --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the copyvio text is still present and ineradicable, it's not a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I find no citations of his work in google scholar. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and no evidence of the extensive coverage in secondary sources required to meet WP:BIO otherwise. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:51, 8 July 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.