Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Alden, Esq

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. Secret ^account 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alden, Esq[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-written biography, no clear notability claim. Witty lama 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence the subject passes general notability or my standards for lawyers. I've never heard of this run of the mill person. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a work in progress, I have edited to included links to additional Wikipedia articles and also introduced a link from a related article. I am open to other suggestions for editing. The subject of the article is notable in regards to being a best-selling author and in terms of of receiving recent awards. DirectKnowledge (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Being the CEO of one of America's 5000 fastest growing companies, as provided by one source does not confer notability; because if we were to assume that 5000 otherwise non-notable companies become notable by their inclusion, notability is not contagious and employees (even officers) do not inherit notability from their employers - similar to the concept that the US Army is notable, not every officer is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs the subject is the founder of the company, the notability claim is not exactly akin to the example given above. Also, in regards to your comment that the subject fails WP:GNG, the subject has also been recognized by other leading news sources such as the Boston Business Journal.DirectKnowledge (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as blatant promotionalism ("Esq"!!!!) Quis separabit? 19:08, 18 October 2014 (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.