Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bernick


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bernick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. To be honest, I was a little surprised to see that this resume-like article was not created by an SPA, the account actually had edits to almost one dozen other articles. JBsupreme ( talk ) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - found several sources - see, , , , and . Bearian (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Those above sources don't indicate any notability. The second link, for example, merely quotes the guy. ("The more people move around you're going to see wages fluctuate," said Michael Bernick, former director of the California Employment Development Department.") The first link, is the same. The third is his staff bio, the fourth is an article written by him, not an indication of notability, and the last is a book back-cover-style page. The last one is the best indication of notability, but that falls short. The the first four demonstrate no more notability than many professionals would have. Shadowjams (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Shadowjams; the sources don't cut it, nor is there any real taste of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources provided to establish notability are not sufficiant to establish significant notability to worth inclusion. When establishing notability one hs to keep in mind that it is about encyclopedic notability we're talking about. -RobertMel (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (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.