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. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger[edit]

Michelle Belanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is just the author self-promoting herself. Clearly fails at notability and it is by no means encyclopedic knowledge. To support these claims, we can see the same author, Michelle Belanger, spamming Wikipedia with her own books and trying to take down credibility from other works. For this check history of edits in the Energy Vampire article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_vampire&action=history) and see all the edits by the user Sethanikeem promoting Michelle's books, ideas and hatred towards other views and works. Then do a simple search on the Sethanikeem nick online and see it is used by Michelle Belanger, the author, in several forums and online services (A few examples are Flick, LiveJournal and the Witches Voice, among many many others. Any simple search will easily show this.) This kind of attitudes is fully against Wikipedia policies and nothing more than self-promotion in trying to gain notability for personal gain. More attitudes from this author against the same works that she tried to take credibility in her Wikipedia edits can be found also across the web, mostly in forums. Her use of several different nicknames for her own manipulative agendas is a common thing, that again, can be easily verified by online research. So in the end this is a non notable author, publishing teen-oriented nonsense about the existence of vampires, by the use of occultist overtones to manipulate people over her views, that in the end have no credibility and are not supported by any well established and believable scholars or publications. In no way this can be justified for a Wikipedia article. GustavusPrimus (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability. Promotional.--Boffob (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - The reasons for deletion seem to be valid and I can't really see enough notability in this article for being considered encyclopedic knowledge. Not to mention that seems to be touching on the realms of a hoax.

In support of the mentioned reasons for deletion, I also found this article about the supposed author, on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The nick Set Hanikeem is refered as being her alter-ego, and some form of pre-historical priest that she is trying to create a new cult based on. For further research on Michelle Belanger, the article can be found on the link: http://www[dot]encyclopediadramatica[dot]com/Michelle_Belanger
Cristina Torres (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added three newspaper articles as references. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Undoubtedly Promotional. -MarkChase (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article fails in NPOV (self-promotion). The newspaper sources, are they reliable? Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix It certainly needs work. I nominate Eastmain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , This article fails at Wikipedia:NOTABILITY.

As it is described in Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, as one of its first pillars (check WP:5P):

"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects."

Despite all of this, the article can be considered Wikipedia:PROMOTION and based on the research information provided in the deletion request, seems like all of this is connected with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

The fact of the author self-promoting herself and spreading links, texts and references about her own book, which can be verified in Wikipedia history logs, represent more than enough reason for deletion. 193.137.158.79 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete. Regardless of how the article started, it now belongs to Wikipedia and can (and should) be edited unmercifully to make it NPOV. The newspaper coverage demonstrates notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if a reason to delete due to a conflict of interest (i.e. spam, lack of notability or verifiability) is enough to warrant deletion (which is what I sense from reading the argument), then COI comes into play to reinforce a valid reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: promotional. Alexius08 (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets the usual inclusion criterion. I see no reason to make a special exception in this case, seems punitive to suggest so. WilyD 13:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a Wikipedia:PROMOTIONAL article. Well-writen, but lacks notability. Wikipedia's aim is keeping a record of encyclopedic knowledge, not advertisement. From my point of view there is not much of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which couldn't be used as an argument for deletion. SydLyra (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the author herself is spamming different Wikipedia articles with publicity on her book to try and bring some notability and fuss around her pseudo-intelectual work, I believe that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies. As a Wikipedia Editor just mentioned in a commentary above, although COI alone does not warrant an article deletion, it can reinforce the other reasons for a positive and obvious deletion of a strictly promotional article, that serves only the author's purposes.

Wikipedia:PROMOTION is the key in here, added to the spam in other articles that is easily verifiable. GustavusPrimus (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2008 (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.