Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Price (librarian)


 * 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. North America1000 08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Gary Price (librarian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTLINKEDIN, WP:NOTWHOSWHO. This is a non-notable bio subject. All sourcing is primary. It's a résumé (appears to have literally been copy-pasted from a bio on his hard drive or maybe one of his websites, and was clearly being edited by him from day one, to include his hobbies, where he likes to eat, etc. While it's been cleaned up by me and many before me, what's left (without removing any unsourced but potentially legit info) simply isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a Who's Who in Libraries or Who's Who in SEO entry.  The entire purpose of the page is promotional, of Price's websites and of his red-link friends, and was littered with WP:EL violations.  The book prominently mentioned (twice) is from a self-publishing imprint, the offerings of which are almost all "how to make money on the Internet" types of no-name-author monographs. Not speedily deletable since there's an assertion of importance (some awards).  However, the awards are from a minor trade association in a sub-discipline (not entirely trivial, but does not establish notability, just professional competence in one field), and a back-pat from his alumni association, which is entirely trivial. I thought about prodding it, but it's clear that the subject himself comes back as an anon periodically to "maintain" the page; it would likely just get re-created in different wording later. I'm not finding anything usable in a Google news search on him. His name is fairly often in library-related sites and publications, but just as a citation attribution, or as the name of a co-editor of a resource they're pointing to (which is now part of Library Journal and owned by Media Source Inc., not by him and the partner). There's nothing I can find that is in-depth coverage him, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. By way of comparison, I am not encyclopedically notable, yet I have more press coverage (actually about, not just mentioning, me) than this subject does, and I put out a book with a legit major publisher, and have friends and collaborators whose names I could drop as links that aren't red. Price clearly isn't notable either. This is a vanity article that has slipped through the cracks (didn't even have any cleanup templates on it, somehow) since August 2004. It's had over to turn into a proper article, and it's just not going to happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject doesn't meet any standard of notability. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable librarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2018 (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.