Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Moates


 * 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.  So Why  07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael S. Moates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Reference are quick quotes, Facebook, or examples of articles. red dogsix (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion standard, and exactly zero of the sources present in the article are about him — all five are about somebody else, and merely embed a single tweet from him about that other person, and that's before you even rip the Breitbart source out of the article because holy hell to the never. A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not by tweeting his own opinions on things into a self-published notability — so nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article as of today. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:SIGCOV in the sources provided, just passing mentions.   Dr Strauss   talk   16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I did give it the old college try. Searched his name with likely keywords.  Looked into the publication he writes for, The Narrative Times, as minor webzine of no notability that I could discover.  sources on the page are not WP:SIGCOV. Frankly this looks like mere PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2017 (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.