Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery Cardoza


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Avery Cardoza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * Keep and trout slap the nominator who has nominated a series of gaming articles apparently based solely on a lack of references. How exactly is an author of over 20 books not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He is notable, but the article is written as spam. If you'd like to re-write it I'd support it being kept. DegenFarang (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT would seem to be relevant, here. The nomination comes off as "This needs fixing and I'm not gonna, so delete". I know that wasn't what you meant to say, and not how you intended it, but that's how it read. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on the merits. I'll clean it up a bit here, but it will need more work. There is evidence, however, that the subject is notable - so deletion is right out. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gutted the article and stub tagged it. Add back as much as you can, with appropriate sources. There's no question that Cardoza is notable, but that doesn't change the fact that we need sources for a BLP. I added one ref to confirm ownership of the Gambler's Book Club, though I did not discuss the controversy surrounding that business (and its zoning) due to NPOV. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In present form I change my vote from Delete to Keep (I was the nominator). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2013‎ (UTC)
 * If Hairthorn concurs, we would appear to have consensus and this could be closed out. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections here, it needs more refs for notability but it's already tagged for that issue. Hairhorn (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article is one of a series of bad faith nominations by a indef blocked editor. ▪◦▪  ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 23:59, 22 February 2013 (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.