Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Otterman
WP:GNG says "''Significant coverage'' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." I don't see any secondary sources in the article as it currently stands that count as significant or detailed coverage of Otterman himself. The closest is ''ReadySteadyBook'', which is (1) a blog and (2) a primary source.University and publisher bio pages are primary sources at best and  at worst.  says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."I looked for references myself and couldn't find any. http://books.google.com/books?id=wiVqrgS68NoC Google Books lists no book reviews and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Michael+Otterman%22&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=2000 Google Scholar doesn't show much in the way of citations (I.e., not enough to meet  or ). His standard bio describes him as "award-winning," but the only source I could find about an award was http://michaelotterman.com/full-cv/ his CV which says he  had "award-winning coverage of the 2003 Wellington C. Mepham High School|Mepham High School football hazing scandal" when he was a reporter for ''Herald Community Newspapers'' in Lawrence, Nassau County, New York|Lawrence, New York (population 6522). As his bio doesn't include what the award ''was'', and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22michael+otterman%22+site%3Aliherald.com Google says that he didn't even write that much for them, that seems to be a dead end.Until someone finds secondary sources with significant coverage, this article is deletable, as we've got nothing to base an article on
— User:DoriSmith, 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SPS||WP:BIO||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia:Verifiability)