Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Paul Lafler


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Paul Lafler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete resume for nn programmer; fails WP:GNG and almost is WP:SPAM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to fail notability, and reads like a hidden autobiography, or as LinguistAtLarge said, a resume. Judicatus | Talk | Contributions 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Author of several apparently notable books and a syndicated periodical column that may also be notable.  That said, I find it hard to find anything much about the author between all the references to his works.  The article claims listing in several "Who's Who" style books, which may or may not be reliable sources.  Unfortunately, I'm unable to find copies online.  JulesH (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's Who books are "pay for inclusion" vanity affairs and are no indication of notability. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty broad generalisation you're making there. Yes, I'm aware that some such books are, or at least have been, but others are more restrictive over who they include.  See  for a description of selection process for one such book. JulesH (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note--even if he is notable, the article had more fluff than those twins from Knoxville. I cut some. He seems to have written a bunch of those articles, sure. I don't accept Who's Who as a reference since too many are too dubious: if someone is notable, they should be found in other sources as well. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 8 April 2009 (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.