Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Graziosi


 * 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  Icestorm815  •  Talk  04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dean Graziosi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Current state of article reads like promo advertisement spam. Subject fails WP:NOTE: has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I came across this article today and tried to remove some of the promotional bits and copyright violation, which left very little in the article. Fifteen minutes later it was back. Subsequent edits have been the addition of more promotional material; as I noted on the talk page, I think this is likely to be a constant problem. Google results are so liberally seeded with this individual's SEO and promotional content that I have so far been unable to find any reliable, independent mentions of the subject. He may or may not be slightly notable (at least one of his books appears to have been on the NYT bestsellers list , although I don't know how many copies you need to sell to get on the hardback business list), but lack of any significant mention of this person outside his own websites and people complaining about him on other sites is a major problem. By the way, the article presently contains a partial copyvio of several of the subject's websites , . I didn't want to remove them unilaterally during an AFD, but perhaps they should be blanked?-- Kateshort forbob  20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

""delete"" --Neoursa (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Due to the lack of useful unbias bio information and the repeated spamming of this article it's best to remove it. I can't find any info on the subject on the search engines. One interesting thing I learned (looking up this subject) is that extorsion sites exist that act as consumer complaint sites; for a fee from they remove complaints and damaging info on businesses/services etc. Maybe of note is the user: Awesomeweb has been revising the article as others mentioned it reverts back to ad/promo. 23:55, June 27 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is likely to be a constant WP:ADVERT violation and notability is not established, per nom. ERK  talk 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as he did write a best-seller, he is a notable author in his subject, and that makes it necessary to keep the article--though I fully understand why the immediate impulse upon seeing this article would be to get rid of it. The spam must of course be removed, and the article carefully watched, protected if necessary. DGG (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt to prevent re-spamming. Notability isn't inherited even if he had written a best-seller. Drawn Some (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons as others have pointed out. I would protect the article to avoid undesirable edits and I would ask for a major rewrite.  Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (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.