Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Otterman


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Otterman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, unreferenced BLP for a nn person. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, has few google hits. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep article much improved Pohick2 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete sources at present including links to his university biog and youtube clearly fail WP:BIO by some way. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep improper sources can be removed through cleanup and article may be WP:IMPROVED through addition of proper reliable sources toward notability. With respects to nominator User:Carlossuarez46 and User:Polargeo, surmoutable issues are not cause for deletion. The article can be fixed, so let's fix it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had looked through much of this coverage already before !voting and there are interviews with him about other stuff but then what academic does not get interviewed? I could give you several websites where I have been interviewed including pictures of myself (BBC, NPR etc.) but the coverage is not about me it is about my work and the same goes for Michael Otterman. No notable awards, no indication of passing WP:PROF or WP:Author no significant coverage of him as an individual. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AUTHOR:"3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i.e. Tavis Smiley, BBC, JTV. if the television interviews are about his work, then they confer notability to it and him. your notability is irrelevant. do you really want to argue that televised "book tour" events do not confer notability? Pohick2 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - This was just a typical example of lazy article creation. i've cleaned it up and verified the adequate references -  all things the original  creators/editors could have easily  done themselves. The Macmillan and the university  websites are perfectly  acceptable and sufficient fvor WP:CITE while perhaps the youtube references may  not  be.It  is helpful to  be able to distinguish between a blog and a page on an official  university  web site.--Kudpung (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wrote "biog", short for biography, not "blog" I was trying to say that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. I have worked at several universities and have written my own "biog" for each university I have worked at. Therefore I would say that although his biog is likely to be relatively truthfull any claims within it certainly cannot be used to establish notability without some independent verification. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be the one to appologise fore mistaking the 'i' for an 'l'. And in fact  I  do  see your point  about  who  writes the uni  bios.--Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did someone say an 'i' for an 'I'?   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:GNG says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." I don't see any secondary sources in the article as it currently stands that count as significant or detailed coverage of Otterman himself. The closest is ReadySteadyBook, which is (1) a blog and (2) a primary source. University and publisher bio pages are primary sources at best and WP:SPS at worst. WP:BIO says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." I looked for references myself and couldn't find any. Google Books lists no book reviews and Google Scholar doesn't show much in the way of citations (I.e., not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR). His standard bio describes him as "award-winning," but the only source I could find about an award was his CV which says he had "award-winning coverage of the 2003 Mepham High School football hazing scandal" when he was a reporter for Herald Community Newspapers in Lawrence, New York (population 6522). As his bio doesn't include what the award was, and Google says that he didn't even write that much for them, that seems to be a dead end. Until someone finds secondary sources with significant coverage, this article is deletable, as we've got nothing to base an article on.   Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what would you call Tavis Smiley? do you require a nytimes book review? (or Sydney Morning Herald added?) Pohick2 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Doesn't that prove notability? Look at the first result.  Major newspapers publish his articles, and review his books on tortures.   D r e a m Focus  00:25, 22 February 2010 (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.