Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Striar


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Striar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music,  and Massachusetts.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: per G5. Article was created as one of only a handful of edits by a now-indeffed sockpuppet ... and as it happens, looking at the investigation archive, the modus operandi of the gang was as paid editors who would disguise their new article creations around a handful of trivial edits.  Lo and behold, this is the only article the sockpuppet created, and the sock made exactly two other edits over 16 bytes. Advise salting.   Ravenswing      01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, . I have already been through the contributions of all the socks and nominated all but one (a minor historical figure, long dead) of their extant new article creations for deletion or speedy deletion. Just in case you were thinking of doing the same! Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of any kind of real and significant notability. The aroma of the promotional verbiage comes on stronger than that of wet socks: "became a fixture", "was quick to capitalize", "received international attention," etc. Why, oh why. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent. I am concerned with tone as well,WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2022 (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.