Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Stattelman


 * 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. ansh 666 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael J. Stattelman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable professor or author. At least some of his books appear to be self-published, and in any case haven't appeared to have been covered in reliable sources. As for his professorship, it doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF due to a lack of peer-reviewed published material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. For clarity, am I correct in assuming only academic credibility is given to those from Major institutions of higher learning (non-technical schools) based on ones access to research funding or grants? Am I also correct in getting the impression that self-published content is of less value than those of a major publishing house? This appears to run counter to collaborative and varied perspective nature this very platform. A patent for expanding the capacity of an optical disc by increasing the surface area of optical dics is not of note? 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
 * No, academic credibility does not depend upon being located at a major institution, although having a named chair or distinguished professorship at such an institution is one way to meet our standards for being a notable academic. Nor do we care about access to research funding. Self-published content does not establish notability, because we have no way of evaluating whether it has gone through any quality-control process. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More generally, publications by the subject do not establish academic notability, at least not by themselves. It is the publications by others citing the subject's work that we look at. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. People in continuous service to their countries, technology and education should be known about. 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This persons Optical disc capacity expansion should be considered a contribution and not self promotion 11:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.82.237 (talk)  — 96.32.82.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Authors of copy written books available for mass distribution on trusted platforms should be available for research by a source such as wikipedia. As long as they are only claiming authorship. 11:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The article seems to discuss a person in a fact based manner and not promotional. 11:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.208.155 (talk)
 * Keep. The professor ratings site is not affiliated with the school or the professor, the patent filing can be verified on the USPTO site. 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)  — Mstatt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment to Mstatt: You are only allowed to make one !vote per AfD. That is, if you've already !voted "Keep"/"Delete"/"Merge"/etc., you cannot make another !vote without striking out your original. Also note that Wikipedia deletion discussion outcomes are determined by consensus, and not necessarily numerical votes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Understood, thank you.12:50, 8 January 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Google scholar search finds only one uncited patent by him, so there's no chance of notability through WP:PROF, which generally requires multiple heavily-cited publications. And as the author of three self-published books, one of which has the spammiest title I can ever remember seeing, he doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. No other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing even real assertions of notability, let alone evidence thereof. --Calton | Talk 03:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage of this individual in reliable secondary sources, or any sources apart from social media. I notice that User Mstatt has a very similar name to the subject of the article, and presumably a conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. To add to above, article is almost all OR. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I left a message on the author's talk page four days ago, explaining that if the article is to avoid deletion, then all content must be verifiable and that notability (in the Wikipedia sense) must be established. I explained that this would need good quality references for the factual material in the page and suggested WP:GNG as a straightforward criterion to aim to satisfy. Since then, the author has neither replied to my message nor made any changes to the article. — Hebrides (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update – the author has since added a photograph and a reference to a self-published book. Neither of these addresses the fundamental lack of evidence of notability and verifiability. — Hebrides (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  19:46, 12 January 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.