Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas LaBier


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas LaBier

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As has been pointed out, this article appears to be nothing more than self promotion. See: Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé -- Xichael (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DumbBOT! -- Xichael (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the book is in 600 worldCat libraries. Added to his other writings, its enough forn otability. The article3, of course, needs rewriting.  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I believe he fails to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment The ISBN number in the main body of the article is a clear attempt to sell books. It needs to go regardless of whether this worthless fluff biography is kept or deleted. ISBN numbers are nothing more than bar codes for the convenience of publishers and booksellers. They should be eliminated at all times, in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a bookselling device. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. ISBN codes are useful to Wikipedia and its readers for multiple reasons, most of which do not have anything to do with helping people buy books (and why would that be bad, anyway?). They help fulfil WP:V by making it easy to verify that the claim of a book being published is true, and they provide easy links to Google books (where in many cases one can read portions of a book online) and to worldcat (where one can find libraries that hold the book). As long as we agree that an article is on a notable subject and that mentioning a book is relevant for the subject, we should keep the ISBN. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * just asDavid E says, the ISBN is a industry-wide standard identifier. In fact, our entire WP:Book sources structure is built around them, as our way of avoiding promotional links to specific dealers.  The article is indeed more than a little promotional, and will need to be edited, but that's another matter.  DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Google news archive search finds adequate coverage of his work and his book in multiple major newspapers. But the article needs to be rewritten to be less promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2010 (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.