Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon R. Gladdish


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon R. Gladdish

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This subject fails WP:BASIC and alternative criteria at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Though this subject has published several works, they have not garnered substantial coverage in multiple third party sources. This individual hasn't been cited or reviewed to the extent that he approaches WP:AUTHOR, nor has he been awarded with anything that would obviously satisfy WP:ANYBIO. It's just WP:TOOSOON to call this person notable by Wiki standards. JFHJr (㊟) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nomination, subject's work has not produced any significant secondary literature so fails WP:NOTE.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Gladdish has not yet written anything significant and does not appear in any reliable sources. He may become notable in the future; presently, he is not. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find anything about him, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of above, as well as my previous conversations with the article's author and elsewhere . 99.12.242.7 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete pn, nothing to add. ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: the page ratings--in this case quite high--does anyone treat them seriously? My observation is that they often appear to be utilized by interested parties in order to bolster an article's credibility, and are essentially useless. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment II I'd appreciate any help re: user Riccardito's persistence in removing cite tags from the article, and to continued false characterization of others' efforts to clean up the article as vandalism and attacks. Tired of edit warring over this. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you're both edit-warring, so you should stop. Second, the tags are borderline because there is a source (his website), and although self-published websites are not great for sourcing material, the assertions are not particularly self-serving (certainly not the material about his wife), so it's not that big a deal. Third, it's not worth getting all riled up while it's at AfD. If the article is kept, then you can get all riled up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Points taken, absolutely correct. Thanks. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. bd2412  T 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above, another "look I got my cv on WP" article.  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks RS coverage.  Well put by the Captain.  Let's snow this, to save the Project's editors further review time.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment SNOW I agree with Epeefleche and think this is a classic WP:SNOW, no one is defending this article after several days. Any chance for a close?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (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.