Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Steinger


 * 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. czar 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael S. Steinger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NPOL. In addition to failing notability the article is overly promotional in tone and seems to have been placed as part of a campaign bid. Jbh Talk  01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Otherwise just another ordinary ambulance chaser lawyer. His firm's advertisements constantly run on television where I live....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sources contain typical candidate coverage and quotes in articles about his business. Gab4gab (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as nearly all of the references were based on him as a candidate and possible officeholder. Now that he is no longer a candidate and not a possible officeholder (unless he has made some statements to that effect, which should be mentioned in this AFD) deletion seems reasonable. Prior to election, his status as candidate and occaisionally cited lawyer was enough for notability. His status as lawyer alone is not enough. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Candidates are not entitled to articles just for the fact of being candidates in and of itself — and no, the candidacy would not have bolstered his notability in and of itself while the campaign was underway either. Our notability standards for politicians require a person to hold office, not just run for it — the only way a candidate for office clears the bar is if he can be demonstrated and properly sourced as already having had preexisting notability for reasons independent of his candidacy, but nothing here gets him past our notability standards for lawyers. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my nomination.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete having a role in a law firms local television commercials is not a show of notability. Seeking a party nomination to run for the state legislature, but apparently not even winning that is not a sign of notability. He would have to have won the general election to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 20 February 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.