Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bach (writer)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Bach (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and charity executive, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or businesspeople. For the record, this is the same person as Articles for deletion/Michael Bach (businessman) from 2017, though the article is written differently enough to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- but it isn't doing any better at establishing that he would pass WP:GNG. As always, neither businessmen nor writers are automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not in the things the article says he did, but in the amount of reliable source coverage about his work in media that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. But eight of the nine footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and the only footnote that actually comes from a real media outlet is just covering him in the context of winning a minor local-interest award that isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie all by itself. There still just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Because it's been here once before, I'd rather get consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople,  and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Primary sources, no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sourcing not present in the article, little reward for a WP:BEFORE, either. Alphabet Soup is published by vanity press Page Two and the Nautilus Book Award is a 'pay to play' affair of questionable notability ( so much so that I'm nominating that article for deletion! ). I was reading a cached version - Liz deleted the Nautilus Book Award page in 2021 following an AfD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, regretfully. I turned up one source with significant coverage: It uses Bach and his work at KPMG as a case study, given two pages of coverage. Much of this about Bach's work specifically, and the awards he won for it are given a paragraph. Useful but not quite significant: a couple paragraphs on his coming out in Management of human resources. Other than that, he gets quoted a lot as a DEI expert, but I couldn't find any such pieces that have more than a snippet of content that's really about him. That said, I think the Johns book is solid, so if anyone can dig up another, I'd gladly change my !vote. For those who might look, I mainly searched using his name and "KPMG", "CCDI", "Birds of a Feather", and "diversity and inclusion". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 16 March 2023 (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.