Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kalvitis


 * 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. B music  ian  10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

David Kalvitis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Feels like self-promotion. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

*delete Promotional. No independent evidence of notability. Any article which refers to the subject by their given name always sets off alarm bells for me.  Tigerboy1966  01:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) striking see below
 * keep I know I often change my mind on AfD, but this is ridiculous. Performing the quickest reversal in history after I checked for sources. Non-trivial coverage in New York Times Article needs lots of work, but subject seems notable.  Tigerboy1966  01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I showed when I contested the PROD, the guy has a full-length article in the New York Times and a bunch of other hits in reliable newspapers/journals (some are behind paywalls, though). Clearly meets WP:GNG. If the article has a promotional tone, that is a reason to improve the article through editing, not delete the entire thing. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The articles provided seem to establish notability. The promotional tone means the article needs fixing, not deleting. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the most obviously promotional sentence, though the whole tone of the article could still be improved. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - First I do apologize for not being a great writer. I am a pencil puzzle fan.  I saw that Terry Stickels had a Wiki and thought that Mr. Kalvitis should too.  I tried to follow the same format as what was written about Terry Stickels since his Wiki was accepted.  David Kalivits has created 16 dot-to-dot books and working on the 17th.  He is self published which I am sure is why his notability is being questioned.  It is almost impossible for a self published author to get on the NY Times best seller list.  His website lists 15 awards that his books have won.  They all seem to have links to the actual award pages.  I used the website for the books, the news page link, to find the news articles written by journalists, not his company.  I did see that most were old enough to not be available without paying to read them, but the article was still available for purchase on the newspapers website.  Amazon.com lists all his books as well as Barnes and Noble.  His website also says he has sold over half a million books, which unless you are with a big time publisher may be hard to verify, but I am not questioning it.  I have a book that is on it's 6th print run.  He is also an inventor of different ways to do dot-to-dots.  All of his inventions, for lack of a better term, are shown on his website.  My favorite is the compass puzzle.  I did not include all this because all the information is on his website, and as stated, did not want it to look like an advertisement.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  A number of other companies have seemed to "use" his ideas to come up with their own dot-to-dots and it would be great to have Mr. Kalvitis established as the first to start making more for adults. Please tell me what is required, other than paying for newspaper access and I will get it to you.  As I stated, I am a pencil puzzle fan, not a writer. Thank youTerriLeaMA (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2012 (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.