Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage, Randy Paul


 * 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. A consensus of editors appeared to believe the article was unsalvageably promotional, and with one exception, editors argued there was not available sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Salt for repeated recreation, future attempts can always be pursued via AfC. j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Gage, Randy Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about this man had been created in the past (see Randy Gage). It was deleted because Randy Gage did not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It was also deleted once for blatant advertising. I believe that Randy Gage still does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only purpose I can see for this article is pure promotion of the subject.Electric Celery (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles you are talking about probably were created by someone, who didn't take enough time to read all the guidelines and help on how to write an article. I assume they didn't provide enough balanced information, links and resources. As you can see from the article I put a lot of efforts to create neutral and informative article about the person. I am not affiliated with him or his company. However his books and blog inspire me. And he is really known and famous, even more famous than some other persons in Wikipedia. I am from Kazakhstan, and I can see from here how much he is being appreciated in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and other former Soviet countries.
 * In the article I put 25 bullet points of media coverage, but actually there are more stuff can be added
 * His new book "Risky is the New Safe" has become The New York Times bestseller and #1 Wall Wtreet Journal bestseller
 * And as I already stated in another section he sold more than 10 million copies of his books and translated them into 20 languages
 * I don't think he needs any more promotion than he already has. But I am sure the article is able to contribute the Wiki project. Zhankus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that the subject of this author seems to be the only subject you have edited on the english language wikipedia. I wonder if you would be prepared in the interests of openness to declare whether you might have a relationship to the author per WP:COI  nonsense  ferret  19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - withdrawn question  nonsense  ferret  19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ok, so I checked out every link in the Media Coverage section.  They are 4 YouTube videos of interviews with Gage, 7 articles and 9 interviews archived on Gage's site, 2 articles by Gage, 1 Chicago Tribune article containing financial advice from Gage, 1 article that quotes the Tribune article, and 1 dead link.  Unfortunately, the links to parts of Gage's website are not reliable, because Gage would likely pick positive articles for archiving.  YouTube is not reliable either.  This leaves 1 source, the Tribune article, which is not enough to establish notability.  Howicus (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote: "because Gage would likely pick positive articles for archiving". Notability does not come from a fact the person is being positive or negative figure. Hitler is not positive, but he is still in wikipedia. --Zhankus (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the sources from Gage's website probably are not reliable because Gage picked the articles, so they are likely to be promotional in nature. I wasn't trying to say anything about the kind of person Gage is.  Howicus (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote: "YouTube is not reliable either.". The youtube in the way you used the word is only a technology. The videos that were put on those video channels are videorecordings of actual TV Shows. While videoblogs can be called unreliable, you can't call TV an unreliable source. The same goes for the articles from real paper magazines that have been scanned and put out on the website. Do you really think it matters where the scans are placed whether on the Randy Gage website or any other? --Zhankus (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps they were referring to WP:NOYT which show the official WP guidelines around when youtube is and is not to be considered a 'reliable source' nonsense  ferret  19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Questions: I'm trying to find evidence that "Risky is the New Safe" was ever a New York Times or Wall Street Journal bestseller as Zhankus claims. The place only I this it mentioned is on that book's page on Amazon.com (www.amazon.com/Risky-New-Safe-Rules-Changed/dp/111848147X/). Is there an archive somewhere of New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestsellers? Even if one of his books was on these lists, I'm not sure that would be enough to establish notability. See section 5(c) under the notability guidelines for "Creative Professionals": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. It states: The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention. If indeed "Risky is the New Safe" was on two bestseller lists, would that be considered significant critical attention? Electric Celery (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer:
 * Link for the NY Times bestsellers list: The New York Times bestsellers
 * Link for the Wall Street Journal Best-Selling Books: WSJ Bestsellers
 * --Zhankus (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: It would seem that at least one book by Randy Gage has appeared on those two bestseller lists. Again, I pose this question to those more familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines; is this considered significant critical attention as per section 5(c) of Notability_(people)? It should also be noted that Zhankus did create an article on Randy Gage on the Russian Wikipedia (see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гейдж,_Рэнди_Пол). I can not read Russian, so I don't know what's going on with the article there. It looks like the English article may be a direct copy of the Russian article. The Russian article is tagged for something, I think it's a fact check tag of some sort based on what I could read using google translate. Electric Celery (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About the russian page Yes, I have created the russian page first, then having some english language skills I challenged to create English version as well. The english version is not a copy of the russian version, but independent article in which I used same sources that I used creating the russian page. The english version is a bit more extended. Anyways it is not prohibited to use wiki articles in other languages by translating them into english. --Zhankus (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has the distict whiff of WP:Vanispamcruftisement to it. (Also, if kept, it needs to be moved to Randy Gage.) - The Bushranger One ping only 12:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This kind of hating words can be left under any article of a living person out there, especially if a person is a businessman. Please provide grounds for accusations like that, otherwise it's just not nice. --Zhankus (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article, upon reading, had the air of a vanity piece, spam, cruft, and advertising - hence, vanispamcruftisement. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the edited article Ok, I have edited the article to add more neutrality and new feel to it. I hope you keep it. Also I am going to renew and add more informaiton about publications and books. I hope you give me more time for it. --Zhankus (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are only allowed to !vote once at an AfD. Therfore I have struck the bold text in your comment, as you have already !voted above. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, after re-reading the article in its current state, my !vote for deletion stands; the WP:BOMBARDMENT doesn't change that he isn't notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, SALT, and incinerate this hideous piece of promotional-spam. Even the title of the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia in this format. How on earth the creator can argue this is not promotional or is appropriate for Wikipedia when sections are written like this:
 * "Randy made many poor choices in his younger years and was a teenage alcoholic and drug addict. This culminated in his arrest at age 15 for burglary and armed robbery. In 1975 Gage received probation from the court and was determined to change his life."
 * "He was left with no job, about $55,000 in debt, and even began selling his furniture to survive. At this low point in his life, he began a study about principles of prosperity."
 * "Public activities

Randy Gage personally met with: Bob Graham, United States Senator from Florida Connie Mack IV, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 14th district Bill Nelson, United States Senator from Florida Lawton Chiles, 41st Governor of Florida Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States Placido Domingo, world-famous opera singer (tenor)"
 * is completely and utterly beyond me. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I see on your page that you "aim to tidy up any grammatical or spelling errors I spot in articles, and improve other articles". So it would be kind and noble of you to help to edit the article in the way you see it should be. --Zhankus (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was any evidence that this person was notable, I would. There is absolutely none, after a Google search. Nothing in the article whatsoever is enough to show notability. And this article is so heavily promotional it would have to be nuked and started from scratch even if he was. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it even possible to prove notability of living people for you, wiki guys? )? --Zhankus (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... read WP:GNG. The article doesn't pass that at the moment, and I couldn't find any sources myself to help it pass. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NPEOPLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The author meets very well one or more criterias of Creative Professionals WP:Author Zhankus (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * People are quite likely to read comments like this as a WP:VAGUEWAVE - you might want to expand on that nonsense  ferret  01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The following table is for reference only in order to help proving the notability. It's not a final edition, I am going to edit and add more to it. Zhankus (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A page with this title has already been deleted three times by three different admins.
 * 23:33, 16 August 2011 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11, promotional )
 * 18:48, 23 December 2008 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (WP:PROD)
 * 15:05, 24 November 2008 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (G11: Blatant advertising)

I also agree that it qualifies as G11: (blatant advertising). -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That had already been mentioned above. It does not mean much anyway. The fact that those articles had the same or similar titles doesn't mean that the article is the same. I don't know what those articles were like and I don't know who made them. I created my own article and I want it to be considered as separate and independendent from those. This article is not blatant advertisement. More or less it has the same style of writing as other articles in wikipedia. If you can improve it to make it look better, please do it. Pushing "delete" button is fast and can be done at any time, but it takes a lot of efforts and time to create something new or improve smth. Zhankus (talk) 16:37, 9 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.