Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hammer


 * 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hammer
Doesn't seem to be very notable outside his involvment with Business process reengineering, in which case, just add his name to that article. See also James A. Champy. --CrypticBacon 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn due to significant improvement in article. --CrypticBacon 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Poor article, but subject seems to be reasonably notable within this field. Lots of Google hits.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom. Please check these Google hits more closely. The vast majority of them are either mirrors of Business process reengineering or are articles where he is inextricably tied to that subject.  Regarding your point that he is "reasonably notable within his field", that was my reason for the nomination.  He is the creator of this "field", but is not notable outside of it.  This is why I suggested that this article be deleted since his name is already included at 'Business process reengineering'. CrypticBacon 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Response While I too am skeptical of small "fields" created by individuals like this, this particular one did receive a lot of attention in the press; I seem to recall it being mentioned in an Information Systems class I took in the late 90s as well. Meets WP:BIO criteria based on books sales, if nothing else.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. - He and Champy are also notable in other areas such as ERP and e-networks and click and brick models. I'll get to its expansion in the next couple of days. --Gurubrahma 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, mainly because it's mostly external links instead of content. He's already mentioned in Business process reengineering, whatever the hell that is. Stifle 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Abstain due to improvements. I'm not sure he's generally notable, but I suspect it can be further improved. Stifle 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - have expanded it as I indicated some time back. He is notable and the facts are verifiable. Definitely deserves an article on his own. --Gurubrahma 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- known in the field, notable among his peers --Nemonoman 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CONCLUSION
 * KEEP - no comments... If Nomination withdrawn I'm removing the mark {delete} from the article. --AndriuZ 20:34, 5 March 2006 (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.