Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Song


 * 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. Apparently no significant references about him. Keeps were admittedly all "weak keep" (and one "very weak keep". Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Song

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

I tried to clean this article some, but it appears to be mostly spam, with no real content. I can't see how this biography is notable enough to warrant inclusion. TN X Man 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is how I respond to your note, but I'm very confused as to why this article is considered spam. In writing it, I modeled it after Timothy Ferris's page and a few others biographis at Wikipedia. Mike Song is a noted author of two books, and a verified expert in his field, as shown with the multiple references provided. Can you please give me some specific feedback on why this article appears to you to be spam? I disagree. Can I get a second opinion? Thanks! RachelMetzger (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I agree with your excisions Tnxman, but I think what's left there is a reasonable article. There are a lot of references - I suspect that several of them are trivial or from non-reliable sources, but it seems to me that if an editor has gone to the trouble of finding plenty of references the onus is on the complainer to show that they are not sufficient. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep None of the citations I read cover the subject in any great detail, but they do mention him in a more than passing way. I hot linked a few of the citations so that others can better assess for themselves. Bonewah (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 *  Very weak keep Delete: borderline on WP:BIO but probably just squeaks by. – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Having reviewed the references in depth, changing !vote to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete marginal BLP fails WP:GNG because none of the sources are in depth significant sources, they seem to be passing mentions. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep due to being quoted a surprisingly large number of times in mainstream media. Friends in the press, perchance? Hmm, tempted to change my mind, will think about this one. Brilliantine (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per everyone else. The mentions I saw are minor, but there are quite a few of them. --GRuban (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - pile of borderline passing mentions in articles about which he is clearly not the subject; doesn't meet WP:BIO, in my opinion. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - so far as I can tell, there are no references that are about him. Being interviewed for articles/shows on other topics doesn't count towards notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject where "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The subject of this article doesn't have that, so the article goes. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:36, 23 December 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.