Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Sayman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sole !vote is not policy or guideline based
 * Keep  - being the youngest Product Manager at Google, and the youngest software engineer at Google, surely makes him notable. Vorbee (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - That information isn't even sourced, and isn't a note towards notability, unless sources comment on it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Youngest anything at Google does not make a person notable without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – This could be a WP:BLP1E situation, but the notion above that significant coverage doesn't exist (e.g. "without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist") is incorrect. Below are some sources that were found on the first two pages of search results using the Google News link atop this discussion. Are people even bothering to look for sources? It's entirely unclear.


 * Regarding the nomination itself, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and the article presently has some reliable source references, so it's not qualifiable for deletion via being an unsourced BLP.


 * Regarding the sources below, some provide some interview content, but also biographical analysis/coverage about the subject as well. North America1000 08:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 References
 * Business Insider
 * News.com.au
 * Bloomberg
 * The Economic Times
 * People
 * NDTV
 * Business Insider
 * Tech Times
 * Delete per nom. CallyMc (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Regarding all of the "per nom" !votes herein, check out WP:PERNOM. North America1000 13:54, 9 November 2018 (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.