Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Madonick


 * 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. W.marsh 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Madonick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability as a professor. Movie information not backed up by sources and conflicts with info in sources such as IMDb. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the notability guidelines for professors and  no sources to back it up.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article isn't even funny, just a load of bull. BASE101 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. As near as I can tell from a Google search, completely untrue and fails WP:Verifiable.  Also incredibly vulgar with no redeeming humour, hence the "speedy". Accounting4Taste 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. That's not a criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ag ü  eybaná  20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - G10; vulgarity isn't a speedy criterion, but attack pages are. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, I doubt the jackass who wrote it intended it as an attack. DGG (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment My apologies for using the word "Speedy" incorrectly. I just wanted to get rid of it quickly and wasn't asserting that it fell into a specific category.  Accounting4Taste 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Coren. I'd assumed, at first, vandalism, given the vulgarity. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that was the original. Probably some pissed off student who flunked the good professor's class or something.--Sethacus 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * changing to weak keep In light of the changes made to the article, which should've been gotten rid of in the first place or heavily rewritten. Answers.com has another mirrored version that suggests he also directed This Is Spinal Tap. O RLY? The prize is notable. However, the only things I can find on Google Scholar are a single poem and a thesis paper.--Sethacus 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I stripped out the attack content so that we could focus on his actual achievements. What remains looks innocuous to my eyes; it's copied (and was a copyvio, but I rewrote that too) from his faculty profile. —David Eppstein 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep if the Academy of American Poets' prize is notable--I have no information on that. His books are not notable--I can find only 9 libraries on WorldCat.  It's wrong to judge an article by the junk people put in it, or all faculty will be at the mercy of the stupider among their students. DGG (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as seems to be notable, but the lack of any third-party sources is not a good thing.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 October 2007 (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.