Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Embrich


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Embrich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The references are mere mentions and are not about the entity. A google news search shows no results of actual articles about this person. The edit history showed that it failed AFC and was published anyways. It looks like an advert created to promote a politician on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A minor official to be sure. I'm always suspicious about bios the read "he was a member of the military" or words to that effect wihout explaining the significance of the service.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG per my BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Firstly, the subject fails WP:GNG. Secondly, it fails both WP:POLITICIAN & WP:SOLDIER, considering the subject as a politician & a soldier respectively. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable soldier or politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete cant see anything in the article that shows anything noteworthy to have a stand-alone page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change User is one of the original authors of the Post 9/11 Montgomery GI Bill. Most certainly a notable person who has appeared on cable news and in print with significant coverage. There are multiple artifices that are soley about this person in the refernces, maybe you didn't look at them all. I don't see the difference between this persons page and any other political figures page. A quick google search also shows he is a spokesperson for the US Army. But, if it violates some Wiki-policy, by all means, change the page back to just being about his work lobbying for the GI Bill, thank you. Demsfan12 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * keep Page seems to have enough references for stand alone page for his lobbying work. The extra stuff can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:8A (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (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.