Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Archer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. east.718 at 00:00, December 29, 2007

[edit] Michael Archer

Michael Archer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. I couldn't find any references in the newspapers listed about Michael Archer. His only remote claim to fame is being the forensic expert hired by Paulus van der Sloot, father of Joran van der Sloot [1] Much of the page consists of quotes made by an anonymous IP editor, and the quotes don't produce any google hits. Bkkbrad (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someything strange: the article originally started as a page about a games programmer, with a list of his games. Only months later was this changed to the current forensics expert. In any case, the article does not establish notability and I don't remember ever hearing about a forensics expert hired by the van der Sloots in the coverage on the disappearance of Holloway. Even if all this is real, there do not seem to be grounds for notability in that either. --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • So, do you think, if this is agreed to be a deletion, that we should revert to the game programmer, or is he nn too? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question. I don't know much about games, so I don't know whether that person is notable or not. Some of the games seem to have their own articles and he is mentioned in them. But perhaps you are (or know someone that is) more knowledgeable about that stuff. I guess I abstain on that one. --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment most of the game credits list Michael Archer as "lead programmer on a conversion" which seems less than totally notable role. Also, some of the games articles seem like good candidates for deletion, (e.g. Shoot Out a (crystal ball) upcoming Wii game based on an arcade game, my guess is our programmer was involved in the arcade game). In this diff the article changes from game programmer bio to forensics person bio. Then it becomes a bio for a fictional video game character here, then back to the back to the forensics person again here. My 2c is that the forensics person comes closest to notability of the three topics this article has covered. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark Shoot Out has now been deleted. --Crusio (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and as he is not notable either, we should delete it, rather than revert to an earlier version. This is a coatrack article about a particular case DGG (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yep, three uses that are in the history - the video game developer (non-notable), the forensic scientist (only notable in the context of the Holloway case) and a fictional character from Syphon Filter 2 (only notable in the context of the video game). As for the Holloway case, neither the link provided above nor the link provided in the article appear to contain information on Michael Archer, which makes the relationship between the scientist and the case unverified at present. In fact, if you look at this MyWire article from AP and this USA Today article from AP there is no mention of Archer being part of the team ... he is credited as taking photos for the AP, nothing else, which is odd if he were involved in the case rather than reporting on it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per DGG and Ceyockey. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per above Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:20, 28 December 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.