Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Dieterich

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dieterich[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sources cited are either not reliable or primary. My searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for no real claim of notability and practically all web sources. Is this a pay-for-play article? Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User is a paid editor, but I removed the tag from the article as they have declared COI on their user page (admittedly this was retroactive), which AFAIK is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. HelgaStick (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article consists of sentence after sentence of "And then, Dieterich did another unremarkable thing." And the only footnote that looks from its formatting to be a reliable source (supposedly a New York Times article) is actually a paid advert for a TV series in which the two paragraphs about Dieterich read jarringly like an advert-within-an-advert. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Although I agree with Eppstein's comments about the tone, there do seem to be a number of notable instances mentioned – such as talking at the United Nations and Congress. But I would say that the article definitely needs to be trimmed of fluff. HelgaStick (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have started an SPI about HelgaStick's !vote above. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (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.