Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford michaels

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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford michaels

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

Authorship of one book which itself has achieved no great claim to notability in the ten months after its release. bd2412 T 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC) bd2412 T 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of any indication of notability, WP:SIGCOV or WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. AntiVan (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Provided sources are blog posts, press releases, and 404's. Nothing better found to establish notability. --Finngall ^talk 03:58, 14 July 2017 (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.