Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Segedy


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Segedy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable writer. No third party sources demonstrating notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other criteria. Dismas |(talk) 03:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient sourcing to show notoriety. Polymathic Darko (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean notability, yes? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The references used are reputable journals: NTCE publication, Virginia English Bulletin; Author was also presented a writing Award by Gwendolyn Brooks at the annual Virginia Bulletin conference in 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.54.75 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. There is no evidence at all this person meeds WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. A few articles published in some very minor journals does not come close to showing that the subject is "regarded as an important figure". Given its nature, having a book printed by PublishAmerica is no evidence at all of notability.No independent reliable source supports any of the article. The sole substantive author of the article ( confirms that he is the subject of the article ("The article about me") which would support the hypothesis that the article is solely promotional in nature. The article has existed for 8 months with no worthwhile improvements in referencing. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, wildly non-notable; sole novel is pay-to-publish, the rest of his publication record does nothing to make up for it. Hairhorn (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * THIS IS NOT A PAY FOR PUBLICATION - PUBLISH AMERICA WAS NOT PAID TO PUBLISH HAMPTON ROAD. Apart form the journals mentioned above, the kafka.com site is a reputable site and the author has an article published here as well. DO you have to be famous to have a wiki published about you? If so, delete the article. If you have reputable references to your work and have published a novel (not pay to publish - which PublishAmerica is not - though it is a lot of other terrible things), then why is this author not entitled to have an article about him in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.54.75 (talk • contribs)
 * Bluntly, yes, you have to be famous to have an article about Wikipedia. No, you're certainly not "entitled" to an article about yourself in Wikipedia. We're not claiming the sources supplied are not "reputable", we're claiming they don't show notability, to the standards listed in WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. And yes, if there's no significantly better evidence, we're going to delete the article. Arguing with us will help not a jot; only providing real solid evidence of notability will help. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the author is referenced by scholars, does that not count as notability (http://www.johngardner.org/checklist/index.html; http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Michael_Segedy; His article on Gardner's Grendel was also referenced by Katherine Paterson: http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/bibs/paterson.html. Doesn't this meet notability? Again, if being famous is the principal criterion and the deciding factor, then DELETE this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.8.190 (talk • contribs)
 * I wouldn't necessarily use the word "famous" to describe the base criteria for an article. To draw from a related field, I would say that most of the people listed in Category:Academics aren't "famous".  But they are (or should be) notable.  This article has sat for months with no effort put into showing that the subject is notable.  Even now, as it is reviewed as to whether it's kept or not, nobody has been doing that which can save the article: Add sources that support notability!  Dismas |(talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article was started by the subject himself with nothing more than a link to his book on Amazon. He's done the majority of the editing.  We can't consider this unbiassed writing - and with such an acute lack of references and the thinnest of claims for notability, we have to delete it.  If this person turns out to become notable, someone else will create an article.  If not, it's not great loss to the encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO by quite a margin. No substantial coverage. Self-editing is not the sign of a notable person. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:39, 12 July 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.