Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Graziosi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. None of the keep commenters, mostly single-purpose accounts gave no policy based reasoning for deletion, consensus is clear here. Secret account 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dean Graziosi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I hate to say it like this, but this article is basically bullshit. ref 1 does not back up his claim to be a entrepreneur or business speaker. This read as an advert. Making the New York Times best selling books on  does not make him a best selling author. This article is promotional and not written to be encyclopaedic. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment this seems to qualify as speedy given the previous deletion discussion.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete- Per analysis provided by DGG. The article has a very promotional tone, and needs copy editing to address that, but the subject seems to be at lest minimally notable. Specifically, it meets item 4 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created,... a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - MrX 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No need to promote junk. The article is created by a dubious editor for a well known ponzi scheme operator who is a self-proclaimed "real estate expert", when in reality is a search engine optimization expert who creates numerous self-boasting sites designed to capture words 'fraud' and 'scam' when searched in tandem with his name to mask the possibility of discovering factual information concerning the real nature of his underhanded boiler room operations which run along with the likes of Professional Marketing International, Scott McGillivray, and Anthony Morison (whose page was also created by the same editor). Once again, no need to promote this junk. 99.135.173.43 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page of the article, you need good reliable references to claim someone is a scammer. I had a look but could not find any, only gossip. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said on the talk page - I'll post some specific links, yet, there's much more than mere gossip, unless of course authentic testimonials from 1000's of ripped off victims are gossip to you. However, in the mean time, please try doing google searches with his name and words 'scam' or 'fraud' and you'll see for yourself that he indeed creates clones of his own sites designed to sway whoever searches for the quality in his "product" from the neutral sites to the ones run by him. How often do you find a respectable business entity that creates such "umbrella-capture" sites for itself in order to protect/hide its own knowingly fraudulent/scamming practices from the public's arising awareness? If this shear fact is not apparent to you, I don't think you'll be convinced by much else. 99.141.253.215 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am under a strong impression that even if I take the time to include the promised links, the continuous flow of nonsense posted by the fraudster's "symphatizers" will be viewed as a valid opinion as well during the arbitration, thanks to the complacency of the "onlookers". 99.141.241.61 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging from the reaction to the links I posted below, you are probably right. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, comment - What you consider junk somebody else considers as good, that is your oppinion.. References support his work and his notability, somebody likes him, somebody doesn't.. --BiH (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article seems promotional, a WP:Advert, which is why it was deleted in 2009. I also looked at your talk page history, and you do seem to have an interest in writing promotional articles. I will be asking user:DGG to have a look.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

and i formative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.132.67.73 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keepi do not know why the hate. the article is good
 * Delete The two books on the NYT best seller list are on the "Hardcover Business Best Sellers" ,not the general non-fiction best sellers, and have their records marked "Some bookstores report receiving bulk orders on these titles."  Bulk orders normally mean that the books are being used in promotions of one sort or another. It's not totally damning, as than  half the books on the Business Best Seller test have that indication. But is none the less quite sufficient indication that this is not necessarily the automatic pass that we would normally give to a NYT best-seller. If it were, he would be undoubtedly  notable. In 2009, I !voted to keep, but I did not sufficiently analyze the best seller data, and at that time not just I but the general feeling here was not anywhere near as strict about promotional articles. This is 4 years later and articles like this,  are the major threat to the   encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is clearly created for promotional purposes. 99.118.128.77 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, comment - Article has good sources. Personal opinion is not a reason for deletion.
 * Delete Mr. Graziosi runs his operation by cranking out his bogus publications for a sole purpose of lead-generating data which is consecutively funneled to PMI, Tax Club, and others who in turn bombard these leads with high pressure telemarketing calls for the ultimate purpose of maxing out their credit cards under the pretext of so-called "coaching opportunities". He is indeed a well known con man, who appears to be in need of wiki page to legitimize his status. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, comment What people are saying here is not related to the article, does anyone have proof of what you are saying? Article has sources and you all have proven by talking soo much that Dean Graziosi does deserve to have a page. He seems to be a "hot topic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.143.126 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are some interesting links http://saltydroid.info/dean-graziosi-rocks-the-bottom/ or http://saltydroid.info/band-of-bothers/ and particularly this one which is the authentic Graziosi/Morrison scamming script used by the PMI employees (some of whom are apparently posting on this page as we speak) http://saltydroid.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Boiling-Instructions.pdf Lionscitygl (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! You again provided single and individual opinion about him. There are the exact same references in the article that are showing that he is a well known and successful man, that his books are mentioned in New York Times, that he appeared in my TV shows, etc. You all obviously have something personal against him. I do not see any hard arguments for deletion, except some private opinions. --BiH (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidently some (or perhaps the same) of Mr. Graziosi's shills are getting really desperate by waging personal attacks on whoever disagrees with them. Note to administrators: shall this remain as a nomination for deletion page, and if so - for how long, or shall it be highjacked and used for skirmish purposes - aimed at diffusing the focus in question? Lionscitygl (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have anything against him. What I see is an advertisement, not an encyclopaedic article. I came across this article whilst watching recent changes, and saw it vandalised. I looked through the article history in an attempt to find a clean version, but could only find adverts or vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to hero worship people like Dean. Lionscityg1, normally articles for disscussion remain a discussion for at least a week so that interested editors can have their say.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep,Keep People hate Dean for some reason, they are not being objective at all.. They are voting for deletion just because they think he's a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.79.154 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This article, fully comprised of promotional content, is an attempt to dedicate a wiki page to an otherwise total nobody whose only 'fame' seems to stem solely from his taking advantage of the unsuspecting public 67.163.48.84 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Whatever the reason for the fame, he's still a person of note. Should the article be edited and less promotional, I think we can all agree on that, but deleted? Wikipedia is meant to provide info on all types of notable subjects. If he's a scam or takes advantage of people, just add that with a legitimate source citing it and proving it. I don't know much about this guy in terms of national recognition, but searching through his site, he's been invited on to news programs like WGN, (I understand it's on his site, but it obviously happened). Obviously he's notable enough to be invited as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.163.98 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This man has always been on tv. You can also find all of the good things he has done for people on the web.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.173.53 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems that there is a very good number of people who are benefiting from Dean's books and training. Some of the sources quoted for deletion do not seem very credible or are highly manipulative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.42.56 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment There seems to be a lot of IP users !voting keep. This is not a vote, and should be taken on merit.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing the pattern and commenting on the matter before this charade got out of hand, as "their" behavior only further underscores the original issue at hand, not to mention the fact that the article fails to meet wiki notability criteria, by a few miles. I put "their" in quotes as it is more than apparent that it is no more than 1 or 2 individuals from Graziosi/PMI team who are posting here virtually identical 'keep' comments (all statistically improbable in frequency and full of promotional praise) while using internet masks and/or proxies which allow "them" to sign with numerically unrelated IP's. 99.135.168.169 (talk) 00:41, 21 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.