Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hanlon

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. The nomination must be considered withdrawn, after Joseph changed his vote to "keep". The only delete vote's rationale is "per nominator" but the nominator changed his mind. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hanlon[edit]

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

Being science editor of the Daily Mail doesn't imply notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this at the Guardian says he's the author of five popular science books - could he pass WP:AUTHOR? I noticed you also flagged one of his books for deletion.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia is correct, Hanlon easily passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some sources. Animus here may stem from the fact that the creator of the article is a sockpuppet - and there are few species Wikipedians hate more than sockpuppets. However, This is a notable journalist, editor, author and now - entrepreneur.[1]. User:Joseph2302, the page was void of sources when you found it, but you may want to take a second look. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep. On closer inspection, he does seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Also, he seems to be involved with Jurassica which has quite a bit of coverage, and if it actually gets built will probably produce lots of national coverage. Bad nomination. I would withdraw but can't, since someone else has voted delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (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.