Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Turner (Pollster)


 * 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 soft delete‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Mike Turner (Pollster)

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

Insufficient Notability and Reliance on Primary Sources: The article presents information that fails to establish person's notability as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but he appears neither to be an academic nor to pass our academic notability criteria. In particular, although one of those criteria is about fellows of major societies for which fellowship is a significant honor, neither of the things called "fellow" in the article meet that criterion; one just means he works at a think tank, and the other (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society) is "open to anyone with an interest in statistics and data science at any stage of their career" rather than reserved as an honor for the society's most distinguished members. So that leaves only WP:GNG-based notability, but we only have passing mentions of him in our sources, rather than the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.