Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Wade


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael John Wade

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Notability of subject is not established in any of the sources Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, article created and edited almost exclusively by single purpuse accounts and suspected sockpuppets, with more than a suspicion that it is just a result of paid editing. All my searched about Wade just turned false positives and a couple of trivial mentions. The sources in the article are all unreliable, primary sources (including a couple of articles written by the same subject) and/or trivial mentions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article is of course terrible. I suspect that one among various things its creator(s) didn't understand was WP-style disambiguation. "Michael Wade" is our man's name as used here, but a different Michael Wade has an article. "Michael J Wade" is his name as used here, but a different Michael J. Wade has an article. Thus, I think, the article's current title. I don't know if this article can be salvaged, but suppose that if it can be then this will be via material about "Michael (J(.)) Wade", not "Michael John Wade". -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep: produces a large number of GNews hits, most of which seem to be about the subject with a very large proportion from reliable sources, ranging over at least the past twenty years. To be honest, many of these are likely to be trivial mentions, but I suspect that between them, they could verify much of the article - more work, I admit, than I am prepared to do, but perhaps someone else may? PWilkinson (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2012 (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.