Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wissot

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 wasDelete non-notable politican. _→AzaToth 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Wissot

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

WP:NN Unelected politician. Only pub able to be cited was an op-ed piece. Toddst1 (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• How is being "unelected" grounds for removal. Seems that most of his political work has been behind the scenes. And I just Google'd a Washington Post and LA Times story on him. So what's the fuss? --User:screenwood 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At the end of the day, article doesn't establish his notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• "'Keep'" On a relative scale, there is far more notability than the majority of pages I'm discovering. I think that some editor is trying to delete it for some other reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinertone (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2007

• Comment: This page has been vandalized twice in the past couple of days by WP:SPAs. The line above was added by SPA User:Shinertone who deleted the following two comments by David Eppstein and Crusio. It was almost immediately followed by the comment by User:screenwood who has only made that one edit. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teamwissot‎ Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No real claim to notability discernible. --Crusio (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:PROF (has adjunct status), and writings amount to very humble impact on modern life. No evidence here of the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to pass WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete fails notability. Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 13 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.