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. v/r - T P 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sacks[edit]

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

Delete' - The article fails WP:BIO. Lots of vanity links to the publications the writer has contributed to, but not a single link about the author. Mosmof (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tone down the promotional stuff and include secondary sources. Here's a selection of third-party references that took me about one minute to find: Oregon Live, A.V. Club, Psychology Today, Potomac Almanac, The Brooklyn Paper, Bookslut. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Numerous references, which act to collectively pass WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I cleaned up the article's organization and merged data to newly-created sections. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing about the person in any of the links I could find. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have rewritten the article, citing multiple independent sources to establish notability for this individual. With this new version, I feel all the arguments for deletion have been fully rebutted. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I still have concerns about whether the subject is really notable enough for inclusion. All the cites in the article, if I'm not mistaken, are reviews of a single book or the sort of publisher-mandated interviews that doesn't really give enough biographical information (or, at least in my mind, not independente enough to be WP:RS) to establish notability. --Mosmof (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that side to the argument, but in my rewriting, I didn't include the review from Psychology Today, which if we included in the article, would probably meet all the inclusions issues, and would also make for an interesting Wikipedia article. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough third-party commentary in the links listed by Steamroller, above. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2011 (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.