Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Prysner


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Prysner

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD contested because it was added "3 minutes after a new article is created" Fails WP:POLITICIAN - not been elected to anything (received just six write-in votes), has no coverage in reliable sources that that address the subject directly in detail in that are independent of the subject so fails the WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you look at the actual coverage, there is significant, independent coverage of the person. This interview is extensive and so is this one. This one quotes him fairly extensively as well. It seems he is a fairly notable anti-war activist.--TM 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the prod because I feel that you could not have looked over the large number of sources provided in the time between the article's creation and 3 minutes later when you prodded it. Unless it is utter nonsense, I think it is better to give the author some time to expand and improve it before trying to delete an article that may or may not be notable.--TM 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at carolhansengrey.com one it is written by the subject. None of the other sources given are main stream reliable sources. with the exception of the sun-sentinel and this is just quoting him and uses phrases such as "Prysner says he served ...." a journalistic tool indicating that they have not researched this person and are relying on what he is saying. He IMO is not worthy of encyclopaedic note Mtking (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Purely trivial coverage of his positions, no coverage of him per se, as required by notability criteria. Ray  Talk 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Frothing up a lot of bubbles on the Internet does not create notability. -- Donald Albury 23:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What say you wish to delete to this source? It looks substantial and independent to me.--TM 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is pretty clearly an antiwar advocacy site, of dubious reliability and independence when it comes to evaluating the notability of an antiwar advocate. Ray  Talk 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is from a website called "antiwar.com", not what you could call a well respected, and if you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you will see that they are not regarded as a reliable source. Mtking (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not what the discussion says. The discussion is referring to using antiwar.com as a source for criticism. Moreover, there is a basic disagreement and no consensus even on that issue. Do we use governmental biographies for politicians? Wouldn't you say they are they clearly advocating a position? For biographies, it doesn't matter if the source is biased towards anti-war opinions and whatnot. It matters if it is is substantive and independent, which it is.--TM 11:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * International news network RT interviewed Prysner in detail. WP:BEFORE you nominate an article for deletion, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to find sources. You very clearly did not do this. The hasty prod and Afd nomination cycle here is an example of why it is reasonable to wait and perhaps do a google search before nominating.--TM 11:55, 10 May 2011 (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.