Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Gordon-Rae


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Alistair Gordon-Rae
non-notable author. Only claim of notability is a book published by vanity press Lulu.com, which does not have a SalesRank on amazon.com. 19 unique Google hits for "Alistair Gordon-Rae." -Elmer Clark 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. That picture says it all about how seriously we should take this page. Daniel Case 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity press author. - Richardcavell 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per WP:VAIN. SynergeticMaggot 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Victoriagirl 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have to agree. I did tell a1octopus that I didn't feel I warranted a wikipedia page on the basis of my current renown. I must say that I disagree that Lulu is a vanity press as I have thus far made a small profit from publishing my book there, but that is not an argument to be played out here. By all means remove the page. AlistairGordonRae 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - I think that perhaps my friendship with the subject of this article clouded my judgement in creating it. On the basis of what he's written (above) I will not therefore defend it. Having said that I would ask that it is removed sooner rather than later so that his name does not appear on the same web page (this one) as "vanity press author" for any period of time as this is borderline libelous to both him and Lulu.com A1octopus 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, this page will remain as an archive forever. However, Lulu.com is also listed at vanity press.  If this is libelous, then that's certainly a bigger deal.  However, they do indeed appear to fulfill the critera for being a vanity press. -Elmer Clark 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From what Alistair explained to me, Lulu.com is capbale of being used as a vanity press but (being expensive for bulk orders) they coudln't possibly be making the majority of their profits in that manner. They should therefore be considered a self-publisher. (a1Octopus - sorry didn't realise I wasn't logged in).
 * Comment Vanity presses and self-publishers are essentially the same thing. -Elmer Clark 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's definitely a view that could be argued over at length - but this is not the correct environment. A1octopus 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and the creator of the original article. Yamaguchi先生 00:53, 24 August 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.