Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry E. Smith


 * 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 of the debate wasThe result of this debate was No consensus = keep.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry E. Smith
Spam and WP:VAIN Kgf0 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (nom) Conspiracy author's vanity spam page. If not delete, then userfy; present user page reads See my main Wikipedia entry at Jerry E. Smith.  Subject is article's principle author.  See also WP:NOT points 2 & 3, and WP:NOT point 1. --Kgf0 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy  howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pintele Yid 04:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep... needs some cleanup, but subject probably meets criteria for author bio (> 5000 books). The current Amazon sales rank of the 1998 book HAARP is #25,200; though not a "best seller", decent sales. ERcheck 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup, per ERcheck jnothman talk 05:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per ERcheck. -- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 08:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per ERcheck, but only if tagged for cleanup. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the article needs some attention. --BorgHunter (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. --Holderca1 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy This is a user page not an article. Marcus22 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this vanity self-published press kit. Let him make his own user page. Ifnord 17:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Page created by User:Jerry E. Smith; his user page refers people to the article. I've had a go at ripping apart the advertising garbage and adding criticisms of this guy's work.  I can't believe 6 people took the time to vote keep, but nobody bothered to even add a cleanup tag.  The article is substantially better, but it's still borderline. No vote. -- Scïmïłar  parley 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy, low notability as an author...--Isotope23 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment: If this is deleted, Jim Keith and George Piccard should likely be nominated as well.-- Scïmïłar parley 21:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments, especially those who voted to Keep. I made the mistake of putting up this page, then reading the policy and guidelines pages.  You are quite right, there was too much vanity in it.  I have attempted to make it a more standard encyclopedia type entry.  I hope these changes are acceptible.  FYI: my HAARP book is NOT self-published and has sold over 18,000 copies and is now in its seventh printing.  Our Spear of Destiny book just came out in July and has already sold out the first printing.  Jim Keith's best seller, BLACK HELICOPTERS, has sold over 85,000 copies.  Which is to say that our works are not without interest.  Jim's BLACK HELICOPTERS book was the Number One seller on the subject. I am new to Wikipedia and have made most of the newcommer mistakes.  I hope you can forgive and correct.  --Jerry E. Smith 22:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (per ERcheck), he's vaguely notable. Why not? Matt Yeager 01:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Autobiography.Edwardian 07:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Foosher 03:19, 7 November 2005 (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.