Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Emmett


 * 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   Speedily deleted per G7, NAC.. ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Emmett

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficiently sourced BLP, and promotional WP:PUFFERY, possibly written by the subject him/herself. No Ghits appear to be available for this Mike Emmett other than the usual social networking  sites.Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Super puff piece lacking in relevant WP:RS, concocted as WP:SPAM by WP:SPA afflicted with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. michaelwemmett (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reliable PUBLISHED sources are now online at http://www.michaelwemmett.com/emmett1.jpg and http://www.michaelwemmett.com/emmett2.jpg Edits have also been made to the article.
 * Obvious COI is obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I indicate in the lengthy discussion with the WP:COI author on the talk page of the article, there is little to no sourcing for this article. As indicated there, I find it odd that someone who is touted in the article to be a pioneer of sports journalism on the Internet has little to no WP:RS information about him on said Internet or in any other sources. To be fair, I don't think it's a hoax, but I feel like it's an attempt to build an article out of things that ultimately aren't sourceable and thus do not meet WP:V. The one cited source is the Mulligan book, but (a) one paragraph in one source (see the image provided by the subject above) does not meet the "multiple" and "non-trivial" aspects of WP:GNG, and considering this is a WP:BLP, that's not enough for an article, and (b) also importantly, in a TL;DR comment on said talk page, the subject of the article states "[b]esides myself, the book also spoke with"... which seems to indicate the included information about the subject in the book is based on information from the subject himself rather than other sourceable information. I'm not questioning the book authors' reliability, but without any other actual source to corroborate the information in and to expand on the one paragraph, the "multiple" aspect of WP:GNG is nowhere near met, and there simply isn't enough here to write an actual encyclopedic article. Ultimately what's left is a resume in prose.-- Kinu t /c  19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Kinu's excellent discourse. ukexpat (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Kinu.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk)

The Mulligan book has 15 pages about me and my career and as far as articles online go, if you folks had been around actively working on the Web in 2000, you would know when the Dot Com Bubble burst, many, many companies went out of business. Servers with information about me, as well as Nando.net, were taken off line. And in the past decade, sites such as NASCAR.com (where I was the managing editor), had revamped their sites and cleaned out their servers. Articles that had been written about me were erased. Even New Media Columnist Steve Outing (SteveOuting.com), who had documented my career online and with SportsEditor.com in the 1990s, has a Web site that only goes back to 2006 with articles. The fact is this: I was the first sports editor on the Web. My boss was the first managing editor on the Web. We opened our doors in Raleigh, N.C., to other newspapers in the country because our publisher was also the chairman of AP (I assume, but cannot be sure, you know what The Associated Press is). USA TODAY, The N.Y. Times, and many other newspapers sent people to our offices in Raleigh to learn how we built and kept updating our Web site. They then took back what they learned and built sites on their own. That really did happen whether you like it, or believe it, or not. I suggest you take a look at hundreds of other articles you have about living persons. You will find those links they list are dead, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.234.123 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The author blanked the page, so I've sent to deletion per G7.” TeLeS ( T @ L C S) 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That editor has also been blocked for sockpuppetry, violating WP:LEGAL, etc., etc. Another day on Wikipedia. Nothing to see here, people. :P -- Kinu t /c  20:12, 30 January 2011 (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.