Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hammerschlag


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hammerschlag

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Doesn't meeet WP:BIO, no significant coverage about the subject. See also the request of undeleting the PROD and the PROD itself. Sources added since the PROD are either not reliable (inc documents hosted on personal website) or do not represent significant coverage of the subject. Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Things aren't online for more than a year or two, and many articles are older. Linked scanned photos of printed articles from newspapers- it doesn't matter if it's on his website, you can't do much better than that. Where would radio or TV talk shows be but on the guy's site- 95% of that is never online? Notability requires awards? Sarah Palin have any? - Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.63.62 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) aka 89.252.25.175 (talk)
 * Scans of Printed Articles Are Neutral

The reasons for the original deletion were untrue, and it seems the deleter- Rclemons (and original protester Tracer9999)- had a political beef with some articles this author has written (he says the accredited NYT op-ed is just "a letter to the editor", that it was the only thing published when there are scans of 50 printed articles, that this guy was a conspiracy writer, when the truth was the opposite). This article has been up over 8 years. The subject is a journalist who has been published in all the newspapers listed, some quoted below, has questioned dozens of famous people, broken major stories, and has +100,000 hits on Google. Apparently it's easy for bad editors to rally other editors, but this deletion is obviously in bad faith, and the result of some political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.63.62 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) aka 89.252.25.175  (talk)

This Tracer has more in line with a blogger in coming up with some far-fetched notion that 25 years of scanned articles and many hours of audio are somehow faked- ignoring a mountain of evidence. http://tomhammers.tripod.com/menu.htm Hammerschlag is a fierce critic of the Republicans and Bush, and it's not surprising he would be targeted for deleletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.25.175 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

this isn't a wether "you enjoy it so it should stay" issue.. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view ) its a notablity/wikipedia policy issue. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently no depth of coverage of the individual in secondary reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BIO Polargeo (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Polargeo.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Polargeo - No sources other then his own webpage. The scans from the webpage, half of them are broken into multiple pieces, the date, the title, and the actual content.. no way to verify its a legitimate scan as none of the newspapers (other then the NY times opinion piece) show him listed in there online archives.  The article appears to makes him out to be a prophet with absolutly no legitimate sourcing whatsoever.  They list him as a journalist,  When all his articles I have seen are opinion pieces.  He would be more inline with being a blogger.  Most of the listed "newspapers" are the equivelant of the penny saver.. or monthly or bi weekly "newspapers" or free papers or "independent" (i.e. self/auto published) websites.   The actual major papers that are listed are completely unsourced. Contrary to the assertions by 94.45.63.62 (who has had to be reverted by another editor for trying to remove the AFD template from the article and wont even sign his name to his post) I do not have any political beef with individual and would appreciate assuming good faith.  I am not russian and could care less about russian news. I also have an edit history of a variety of a large variety of topics. The fact is, with all these alleged newspapers this journalist is in.. you would at least think someone could come up with a NEUTRAL REAL source instead of his personal homepage.  Just click on the news link and see for yourself.  Please also note.. ALL content related editing on this article has been done by IP address only editors who only seem to edit this TOPIC and virtually no other topic on wikipedia and  are possible SPA accounts.  Also the subject here seems to have a connection to Rhode Island based on his articles on the rhode island night club fire, claimed lecture there, claimed employment as a "correspondent" for the providence journal, and an arrest report for a Michael Hammerschlag listed as from from Warwick, Rhode Island(http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/BMAB/lib00795,10D888325CD53DA8.html) (who also seems to be politically active - http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20030331_world31.6775b.html, coincidently, warwick rhode island was the geolocation of the initial IP address that started this whole article and edited it thru the end of of 2006 and beginning in 2007 MOST if not ALL of the IP edits came from russia and the ukraine (starting in 2007..when the article subject claims to have relocated there - http://www.opednews.com/author/author56.html).  Therefore Its likely the subject is the author of this article which would also violate WP:COI.  please check the edit history of the article. -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no awards, no significant coverage of the person, despite his stated longevity in the field. Not notable. It doesn't matter what the reasons for the previous prod or the previous request for speedy delete were, this is an independent review based upon the current article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep"I've studied this site and Hammerschlag has an impressive collection of articles and audio about many different things. Tracers' argument that they are suspicious or faked needs to be proven -- does he have an agenda? Read the articles. He has some thought provoking content. I think all of us must consider what is lost by Deleting this and what is gained by Keeping it. 71.145.170.80 (talk) 19:45, 19 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.