Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wissot (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wissot[edit]

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

Puffy article on pollster that fails WP:GNG. Has run for public office, but that's insufficient under WP:POLITICIAN. After I nominated this for deletion, I learned that the article was previously deleted in an AfD and improperly re-created by an SPA. I have tagged for speedy deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my nomination. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article starts off the same, but has extra information (which isn't surprising, considering it's seven years since the previous version). I can't see, however, that this version is much of an improvement. I'm leaving the speedy tag on, as while I'm not sure about speedying it, someone else might be able to make up their mind. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The G4 has been declined. Peridon (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few brief mentions in the news, but certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running for state assemblyman isn't enough to show notability. There's a definite lack of significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (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.