Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F Smith


 * 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. czar 07:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael F Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable academic with no sources or external links. Originally nominated for BLPPROD but deprodded by the subject themselves. Subject then expanded their own bio and added self-authored sources which have since been removed by another editor. No evidence of reliable independent sourcing that could help create an objective article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. I can't find any evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
 * My apologies for not being conversant with the esoteric protocols of Wikipedia; all honest attempts at reintroducing references and notability have been rejected. My work with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was rejected some time back, then all references removed. The SDQ has been used to evaluate the mental health of many millions of children around the world for over 20 years and I am, for better or worse, its key technologist and operator. I wished in part to keep my entry as a means of assuring mental health practitioners of my bona fides. It is difficult not to be somewhat bitter since I note that entries such as "100 Gecs" appear to be judged legitimate, notable and without commercial interest. I must concede to deletion since my publications and efforts in the mental health field find no favour with the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor m f smith (talk • contribs)
 * No one is saying that your work is without value. But to be on Wikipedia, there must be independent, secondary sources to back up facts. Have a read of WP:BLP. If you can point us in the direction of independent analysis of your work, there may be a case to keep the article.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP I think that this isn't being made by it's subject, but rather that it's maker has put the name of the article they made an account to make as the name of their account aswell, leading to people thinking they were one and the same, not saying it deserves to stay, just that it deserves more timeTrevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Trevey-On-Sea More time won’t help, the BLP has been unsourced for two years. There have been several talk page encounters with other editors that pretty much proves that the subject has written the article, which is against WP:AUTOBIOG. See talk pages User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert/Archive_1 and User_talk:79.79.212.36. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Failure of verifiability on top of lack of evidence of passing academic notability. The very common name isn't helping. There are some publications listed for what looks like the right MF Smith listed at (they match the U. Reading and Istel affiliations) but they don't show notability in any way. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all BLPs need sources, immediately, end of discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF totally unsourced BLP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice. If evidence of notability later emerges, then good to resurrect. I'll also note that the professor's desire to have a Wikipedia page to assure people of his bona fides is not a legitimate reason to keep. (It's for the best. Having a Wikipedia page about you is a bloody terrifying prospect).  The Blue Canoe  23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an invalid removal of a prod from a BLP without valid, independent and reliable sources (failing WP:V and WP:GNG). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 5 July 2020 (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.