Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Koelsch


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Koelsch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. A BEFORE does not bring up significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, except for one LA Times article from 2001. In addition, the current article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information sourced from WP:PRIMARY sources, including Instagram, Linkedin, Pinterest or search results from the Internet Archive. It looks like a significant portion of the article is WP:SYNTH. As a result, the article should in any case be WP:TNTed. JBchrch  talk  21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the creator plunked down a 125KB article as the first version of this. (For comparison, our article on Leonardo DaVinci is 125KB. Lowly Pablo Picasso is not as big as Koelsch, at only 104KB.) This article is so spectacularly bloated that there is no hope in determining notability by using anything in it. In fact, it poisons reasonable discussion because so much of it is either puffed up, mis-stated or just plain old lies. This is hall of fame puffery and exaggeration: 259 sources? I spent time removing Instagram and Abebooks, but there isn't enough time. I am hopeful that way is discovered soon to prevent the creator (who seems to be a seasoned promotional editor; here they are linking one of their new articles to 180 other articles) from making more articles like this one, as it is detrimental to our mission of neutrality. --- Possibly (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a clear case where WP:TNT is called for. I also agree that both the article and the efforts to add links to it into scores of other articles seem promotional. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG - almost all mentions are trivial. WP:CREATIVE standard also not met. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just when you think you've seen everything here, something like this shows up. I am in agreement that this is a solid case of WP:TNT as the article, even in it's somewhat pruned state is vastly bloated and inflated and unencyclopedic. It's impossible to determine what is real. The LA Times article is good but all of the other refs I examined (who has time to review 200+ refs?) were trivia with no bearing on notability requirements of GNG or NARTIST. Obviously a PROMO creation. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If I had to start somewhere, it would be removing all the citations to shannon associates, goodreads, pintrest, amazon, instagram. discogs and all the other sources that are definitely not independent reliable sources. It's so full of unusable sources that it's almost impossible to tell if there is something that does meet our needs. The only thing that stands out for me is the latimes. Vexations (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a good approach. But in this case, when I tried that is is extremely time-consuming, as the refs are named with numbers and the article is very densely populated with sources. To remove each amazon source, for example, one has to find the source, copy the ref number, delete the source and then search for each time it was used as a named ref. And that's just to cut one bad source out. I also discovered that if you miss one numbered source, AnomieBot will come back later and rescue the junk source! Here's AnomieBot happily adding back a bunch of Instagram and linkedin Sources. --- Possibly (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I want to make sure I do due diligence, so I have looked up every online source that is referenced in the article. It is possible that I've missed something, but the current sourcing, to the best of my knowledge, does not establish that the subject is notable. There is no significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Article does not establish notability through sources or...Alex-h (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2021 (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.