Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Deibert


 * 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   No consensus after two relistings. Non admin closure. Equendil Talk 11:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Deibert

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

no evidence that this journalist meets WP:CREATIVE. deprodded without explanation. ccwaters (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard Deibert on the radio many times here in New York and read his book. I think he meets Wikipedia criteria. C. Fellerston (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep His book is in Worldcat with 167 library holdings, and has 2 citations to it in Google scholar.  In addition, he has published at least 3 academic articles on politics, listed in Worldcat under his name and published in MIT's World Policy Journal,.  That by itself is not enough for notability as an academic, but coupled with the journalism, I think it just passes.   DGG (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO. Bad sign that half the page is external links. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think the combination of the book, journalism and scholarly journals rises to the level required for inclusion. Shorditch7 12:31, 25 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoreditch7 (talk • contribs)
 * — Shoreditch7 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ccwaters (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Just being a journalist or writer isn't notable, that's just a job.  To be notable there has to be some evidence of having risen above the norm, i.e. winning an award or reaching exceptional standards in some way.  There doesn't seem any evidence of real notability here.Austin46 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Combination of adademe and journalism passes our bar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (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.