Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Sasscer


 * 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 both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Sasscer


( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Fails WP:BK, fails WP:RS, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:COI, fails WP:N, fails WP:V, fails WP:SPAM, fails WP:single-purpose account, and so on and so forth. Google throws up a palty 21 hits, none of which can be considered WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete very close to G11 advertising. Not one library has the one book he's published. A list of books with one published book on it is a new low. DGG (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks;

I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.

If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.

He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...

How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?

Everett

UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider.  Thanks.

EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources, no indication of passing WP:BK or WP:BIO, nothing found in a search of Google News Archive. EverettGee, promoting a new author is not what Wikipedia is all about, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to fail WP:BK and WP:BIO.  a s e nine  say what?  03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as for all vanity pages. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (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.