Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Gagliardi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the discussion was delete. Mangojuicetalk 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Gagliardi

Very limited assertion of notability as writer in college paper and advisor for highschool newspaper. No evidence of passing WP:BIO Eluchil404 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One book from a vanity press and 184 unique google hits do not constitute proof of notability. Eluchil404 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A vanity press, hmm? Looks like someone didn't do his research, eh? --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, except 1 book from publishAmerica, which appears to be a vanity press. Artw 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - legitimate writer that is highly rated on amazon.com --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Legitimate" writers don't need vanity publishers. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "highly rated on amazon.com"... Are you refering to the 4 stars which are the result of a whopping 5 anonymous votes? Or are you refering to the fantastic 1,384,727 amazon rank? Either way, I think this is making the case for this guy weaker if anything. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity bio (he's a member of Mensa!) of someone published by a vanity press. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No context, WP:VAIN. Ryulong 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds like a good writer, but just doesn't pass guidelines/policies. Per nom.--Andeh 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - good biography, but little details. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, yet. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yep, this is not notable. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep published author. — Reinyday, 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Published author, yes, but he only has one book, and it's published by a vanity press, and a sales rank of 1,384,753 is nowhere close to notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Publish some more stuff, then we'll talk. --NMChico24 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not free hosting for his resume. Alphachimp talk 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity article. RFerreira 07:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - anyone can pay to have their book published by a vanity press, it doesn't make them notable. He's a teacher. He's not WP material. Seb Patrick 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, one vanity press book does not cut the WP:BIO mustard. --Kinu t/c 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominal. Black-Velvet 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Seb Patrick and Kinu. -- Docether 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and all valuable comments above. Note also that his sole publication (at least as far as Amazon knows) would fail to meet the proposed guidelines for the notability for books. On this note, let me shamelessly advertise that proposal: if you have an opinion on the subject please take time to read it and comment. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, doesn't quite scrape by. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This one intrigued me. I actually found that he is considered the #1 teacher in the country (Ratemyteachers.com) and has been listed in a lot of magazines for his dual role as a teacher and stand-up. Sounds like he is more well known that the wiki edit gives him credit for. -- Fred Sturtz
    • Comment: User's only edit to Wikipedia; possible WP:SPA. --Kinu t/c 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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.