Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garret Kramer (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   keep. SarahStierch (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Garret Kramer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on notable performance coach and author; his book, Stillpower, is in only 28 libraries according to worldcat. The references are primarily PR, or his own writings, or articles just mentioning him among others.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain the article. Can't really see any criterion for deleting this article. Can the proposer offer anything else to justify removal? The fact that the book did not sell well to libraries isn't enough to denigrate its author, particularly when it is stocked in some pretty good California libraries, like Los Angeles, San Diego, Pasadena. Anyway, Forbes magazine has written: "His revolutionary approach to performance has transformed the careers of professional athletes and coaches, Olympians, and collegiate players across a multitude of sports."[9] He's also "appeared on radio WFAN and WOR in New York, ESPN and television FOX and CTV."[9][10] Two criteria, from Notability_(people), are "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." We have Forbes to testify to the latter. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment I think we should deprecate Forbes for notability of BLPs. No reputable publication that does more than reprint PR would have used that sort of wording.  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There are impressive sources cited, but little in-depth coverage: the Forbes reference accompanies an article he wrote and so is hardly unbiased, and sites like about.com are of dubious reliability, so the more I look at it the less he meets WP:GNG. Maybe the positive tone of the article is because he's a very good coach? I'm not sure. But I think we need more evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, all. I just made another add to the article: Go to this link. If this guy is good enough to be interviewed and quoted by the Christian Science Monitor, maybe he will pass inspection here. (Sorry I can't find any transcripts of those radio interviews.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, about them libraries: His first book was in twenty-eight libraries, and his second book, published last year, is in forty-seven. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About that Forbes article. Yes, the quotation came from the introduction to an article that Kramer wrote, but, as everybody knows, the headlines and intros to magazine pieces are written by an editor and vetted by another editor. So there's your WP:NPOV right there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete There is some evidence of notability but all of the impressive list of citations when actually read don't seem to meet the "significant coverage" mentioned in WP:GNG. That aside there is not a shadow of doubt that this is a naked piece of advertising and promotion. If it is kept it needs to be gutted and rewritten WP:NPOV.-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)(UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relist rationale:Prefer not to relist a third time but unaddressed comments have just been made. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)



Addressing the comment just above, I am glad to know that the editor found "evidence of notability" in Forbes and the Christian Science Monitor. The editor did not mention the radio interviews. Anyway, solid keep. If the article has any faults, well, that is another matter which can and should be handled later. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:55, 7 June 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.