Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike bailey


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike bailey
Questionable notability. I'll let the community decide. -- P.B. Pilh  e  t  /  Talk  21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Somewhat Weak) Delete per somewhat unnotable also unsourced. Hello32020 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This niche is under-represented- Do not Delete!it is my intention to document and index educational software companies, their software libraries, and the talent who created them. This information is relevant and important. It is currently under represented on the internet perhaps due to a casual disregard of the educational software niche. Thank you for your serious consideration. (MBailey 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)
 * Delete as non-notable and vanity. Even if his credits actually exist, he's still not significant enough for Wikipedia. "Mike Bailey"+"KnowWare" = 5 total Google hits. "Mike Bailey"+"Rugrats" = 28 total hits. "Mike Bailey"+"Aladdin" = 130 total hits, but I don't think a single one is relevant. Etc., etc. -- Kicking222 22:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unverifiable nn bio. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Sarah Ewart. Also this niche (computer and software people) is overrepresented, not underrepresented. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Computer and software people? the niche is "educational software"information on educational products, companies, and talent is severely lacking. As someone has suggested, just search Google and you'll find out. Perhaps wikipedia is not the place for information pertaining to the history of these software libraries, their production, or the talent responsible. This does seem inconsistent to me. You'll find articles on comic books, games, and movies of all types but this article is objectionable? I would argue that this article is no less relevant to "educational software" than  "John Krifaluci" is to  "animation" or  "Richard Garriot" is to  "video games". I am not arguing important as none of these articles are important. But, it is valid and accurate and will be substantiated by the growing wealth of information in the severely underrepresented niche of educational software.(MBailey 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)
 * If you divide categories finely enough, you can justify including pretty much anything ("Croatia's first slasher movie!"). But skipping over the question-begging in your assertion (assuming that there exists some required or appropriate level of representation for your finely drawn category of "educational software" people, you STILL don't qualify, unless we bring notability/verification standards down to that of the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There really was very little need for this personal attack. I was simply arguing at the level of detail in the previous note. Also, please realize that you are attacking a work in progress as I am quite qualified and accredited and the verification is forthcoming. This article existed literally existed for 3 minutes before it was marked for automatic deletion. Please dont assume that you know everything and are simply judging some wiki-troll egomaniac.(24.27.23.5 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)


 * StubI would also like to add that the current state of this article is a stub. It was my intention to flesh out the article but within 10 minutes of its inception it became necessary to defend it from deletion.(24.27.23.5=MBailey)
 * Delete Sir, please read this article which points out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia has rules on notability, which is one of the criteria we use to determine if a subject can have an article in Wikipedia. Unless you can prove that this person is notable according WP:BIO, he really does not need an article about himself. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to be notable, and there are no sources to help us think otherwise. RFerreira 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be willing to consider keeping if we had more info about what awards he has won. JoshuaZ 23:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 16 October 2006 (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.