| Revision as of 08:37, 18 February 2013 editDoctorKubla (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,937 edits keep and stubify← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:30, 18 February 2013 edit undoDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Avery CardozaNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete''', little more than spam, which ''is'' a reason for deletion. See also ], which probably applies here as well. ] (]) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', little more than spam, which ''is'' a reason for deletion. See also ], which probably applies here as well. ] (]) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep and stubify'''. I think in cases like this, where the subject is notable but the article is in bad shape, reducing the article to a stub is always preferable to deletion. ] (]) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep and stubify'''. I think in cases like this, where the subject is notable but the article is in bad shape, reducing the article to a stub is always preferable to deletion. ] (]) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::I would be fine with this. There is a NYT source that can be left to verify he is a published author and one external link to his company could remain. ] (]) 13:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:30, 18 February 2013
Avery Cardoza
- Avery Cardoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unless it is to be completely re-written, it's just spam, no sources and self-promotional. He is a publisher and there is a source from the NYT, but the article would take a lot of work to be worth saving. DegenFarang (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Needing to be re-written isn't a valid reason to delete an article. (It's a reason to re-write the article, obviously.) Rray 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you'd like to volunteer to re-write it I'll change my opinion to keep. I think he is a notable person, but it's spam and can't be allowed to stay in present form. DegenFarang (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, little more than spam, which is a reason for deletion. See also WP:TNT, which probably applies here as well. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and stubify. I think in cases like this, where the subject is notable but the article is in bad shape, reducing the article to a stub is always preferable to deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this. There is a NYT source that can be left to verify he is a published author and one external link to his company could remain. DegenFarang (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)