Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mico Apostolov

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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mico Apostolov[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article appears to fail the WP:PROF guidelines for academics. Being published, a researcher and a member of various institutes does not of itself demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. Fæ (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new entry; I'm willing to wait a bit to see some third party sources demonstrating notability, currently there are none, and a quick Google search makes him look less than notable. Delete if nothing shows up. Hairhorn (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would have been open to a longer grace period for article improvement but the earlier PROD was removed by the article creator without discussion and there is likely COI considering the name and Single-purpose account nature of the creator's account. Consequently AfD seemed appropriate in order to judge the article on its merits with independent opinions.
- Note, due to considerations of potential WORLDVIEW issues for sources, I recommend this AfD remain open for comment for a minimum of seven days. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear fail of WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, clear accordance with WP:PROF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8MA8 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — 8MA8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that he is notable. The article itself doesn't show anything, and the references I've looked at don't show much more. As always, I'm willing to be influenced by a bribe of some nice reliably sourced demonstrations of notability... Peridon (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep / Garder~~ bien ...très Bien! ce frère ... a fait quelque chose d'intéressant et je pense que ce sera OK pour conserver cet article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GNègre (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) — GNègre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Frère de qui? "quelque chose d'intéressant" - quoi? Il faut des meilleurs références. Peridon (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All it says is that he's an academic and he's published papers. That's not enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep-mantenere*Mi permetto di dissentire, credo che sia in conformità con WP: PROF.--Governare è far credere (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may consider yourself Machiavellian, but creating these single purpose accounts is childish. Please stop and consider using your language skills to the benefit of Wikipedia. Fæ (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
~~KEEP~~, needs some more work and that will come with time and hopefully other contributors --8MA8 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through because one !vote already recorded. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically nothing in WoS either. The article doesn't even make any claim of notability. I don't think this is a very controversial case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Almost no actually published work DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 13 August 2010 (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.