Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Miah

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Miah

Andy Miah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Autobiographical article with a big conflict of interest problem. Sources are primarily by the subject/primary editor of the article. Prod was contested (by the subject of the article}. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - long list of publications may make him notable, but no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - tacky self-promotion. The book section is inflated with book reviews. But his one book has got attention in the outside world according to a google search. Bobanny 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article lacks non-trivial second party sources and references, therefore failing WP:V, if sources are added i.a.w. WP:BIO change to Keep Alf^Photoman 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, after being advised that there were in fact sources hidden in the article but not marked as such. Someone should clean it up Alf^Photoman 14:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - okay disclaimer: I have some professional connection with Miah (though I have never met him) and I would not comment if this were a less clear-cut case. The closing admin can take that into account and perhaps even discount my commnent. That said, he would be notable just for his book Genetically Modified Athletes, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why the article on him is up for deletion. Metamagician3000 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I was the one who removed the prod, and also edited the article, removing a great deal of the over-extensive list of references, etc.) In addition to the book, most of the articles in the list are in high-quality journals, and an outside source is provided by the book reviews at least. But they should have exact references for the purpose. It is not unusual for people to nominate articles by clearly notable scientists on the basis they wrote much of the article. But the question is the quality of the article, not who wrote it, and at this point I don't think there's much COI left.DGG 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies article. --Loremaster 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Upon some detailed exploration, one can find that references are indeed tucked away in the article. The article has improved quite a bit since it was AfD'd and even more since it was prodded (see diff). My reading of the current version reveals no real COI issues, and a look at the edit history shows that they were removed over the past few days. -- Black Falcon 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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.