Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Chrisman

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Chrisman

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

Delete What makes this man notable? Avi 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable person--SUIT 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self promo and no refs--Zedco 08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• User's 4th edit. Tyrenius 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per SUIT's comment. —Old american century 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this person is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO. --Roswell native 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As a published author he does seem to fit WP:BIO, unless the books are self-published. However the article needs massive cleanup. It lacks sources. If no one steps forward to clean up the article before this AFD finishes, then I have no objection to a delete.TheRingess (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I agree with that reading of WP:BIO. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases, authors would have to:
    1. Received notable awards or honors.
    2. Be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
    3. Be known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    4. Create a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    5. Have their work (a) be displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
  • Does this person conform to any of the above? -- Avi 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete self promo, non-notable person Truthbewithu 00:22, 25 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.