Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Filsaime


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike Filsaime
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article reads as an advertisement for a non-notable 'internet marketer'. Major contributions from one single purpose account, Lawther. This makes this article look very spammy/self serving. Unam3d (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete When the majority of the references have the subject's name in the URL, I smell a rat. When an article says 'Mr Soandso' or 'Herbert' (when his surname is Soandso) I also smell a rat. To me, this is spam. I'm open to be proven wrong - I'm always open to being proven wrong (which is probably why I'll never be a pope...). Peridon (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--there IS a rat, and this IS spammy, but at the same time, there is some wheat in this chaff. He had a couple of media appearances, he is on that list of 100 marketers... I'm giving Mike the benefit of the doubt. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the top 5 of a list, maybe. In the top 100? Hmmmmm..... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wow someone really must want this article deleted considering there is a Prod, CSD and AFD all at one time lol. In addition to my good friend Drmies reasons, Mike has some book coverage per, , , . So keep but perhaps a re-write needed. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Marcus! Good seeing you again. Glad you found that coverage--thanks. I went ahead and removed the prod, and the second for that prod; one deletion process at a time is enough. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If not delete it, it definitely needs re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.89.251 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (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.