Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Skolnik

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Skolnik

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cordless Larry thinks it is spam. I think that an article that has survived more than four years deserves an AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had already speedy deleted this, RHaworth? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thought"!! If you are not capable of saying explicitly whether or not I deleted it and if so when, I venture to suggest that you should not be entering into discussions such as this. See also this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, RHaworth. My choice of wording was rhetorical and worked better in my head than on the screen. I knew that you had deleted the article, which is why I was surprised when you pinged me here with what appeared to be a decline of my speedy nomination on the grounds that you disagreed with it. I hadn't seen the undeletion request, but now I have, it all makes more sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article is written today, it reads like a promo piece about a run-of-the-mill business person. Notability does not come across in this article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article needs a fundamental re-write to make it comply with WP:NPOV, which is why I originally nominated it for WP:G11. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the only discussions have been speedy delete vs. delete, it's a sign. Ifnord (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of sources, but I agree that most lack the depth of WP:SIGCOV. But WP:BASIC says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I see significant coverage in two sources: NYTimes and The Grio. When combined with lots of mentions in discussions of national legislation and social debates, this is more than sufficient for that standard. Daask (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. The NYTimes article ran in the local edition, and a single profile in the local paper is not enough. And there is not enough accomplishment or sourcing to support notability. The article lists many initiatives he has started, organizations he created, and careers he has begun - but the organizations did not take off. The one film he directed got reviewed. His new career as a political activist (subject of the 2015 article in the New York Times) has not taken off. I'm just not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article, by the way, was created and improved, if one dare use the word, by a single-purpose account. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.