Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hardaway


 * 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. m.o.p 04:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Hardaway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Puff piece presumably created by the subject. Subject gets a lot of Google hits, as one might expect from a PR agent, but unfortunately they are not in reliable sources that significantly discuss him, and therefore don't confer notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Pretty clearly fails WP:GNG. Chillllls (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - puff piece. red dog six  (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless, over the next seven days, sources are provided which support a significant claim to encyclopedicity. Being written up by an alumni magazine is not sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm flummoxed. If there are articles attached that illuminate the subject as being notable, is that still grounds for deletion? Your opinion of whether its a puff piece doesn't negate the apparent fact that this person seems to be notable. Conjecture and facts are not the same thing. I've taken the time to reach through each citation in its entirety. I suggest that we all should do the same thing, then we can come to the smartest decision. I don't think we should inject our opinions in the matter we've done thus far. From the cited articles (sans the alumni magazine article) it seems as though the person is notable. The alumni article only substantiates the person's alma mater. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.166 (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Notability" is not a magic talisman word, it is a concept subject to discussion, debate and community consensus. You believe that the articles cited represent significant biographical coverage by independent reliable sources. Other Wikipedians have examined the same sources and come to differing conclusions. Below, I offer my analysis of the sources provided:
 * A one-line bio-rip in a blog event calendar entry about a "networking power brunch." Not an RS.
 * A "single of the month" interview that offers the subject's views on dating, but nothing substantive about his life and work.
 * A mention in a press release on a blog that calls the subject a "magnetic superconnector known for facilitating relationships around Washington" without further elaboration or discussion. Not an RS.
 * A one-line blog mention that he hosted a conference panel. Not an RS.
 * A mention in a university PR newsletter that he helped organize a panel discussion and hopes to launch a social-welfare program. Borderline RS, but not really independent.
 * Collectively, these do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I note that this is not a judgment on the article subject's life and works in any way, shape or form. Lots of people do many wonderful things and don't end up with significant biographical coverage of their life and works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per NorthBySouthBaranof's comments above, the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, though I believe we may have missed this piece that outlines his work: http://gaitway.tumblr.com/post/5360620550/dcs-top-image-architect-brands-the-political — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3B80:C1:9535:43BF:1B36:8D4B (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * more meaningless blog puffery. He works in PR. He can get himself written about in blogs (or write them himself). That shows he can do his job. It shows nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2013 (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.