Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Calcagni


 * 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 per consensus. Not there yet. No prejudice against recreation with sources that are about the subject, and not just by the subject or tangentially related to the subject (for example, a link to an engagement/event of Mr. Calcagni's does not infer notability necessarily). Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Calcagni

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

Biography of public relations executive and author. Fails WP:BIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) The following text is copied from the article's talk page. --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. news coverage seems to refer to other people with the same name. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As a published author with books sales through Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. I wanted to add my bio to Wikipedia for individuals that are researching whether I, the author, am a viable resource for them to read. I had included and now removed any links for the book or media coaching references, even though I feel the media coaching references speak to the viability of the information in the book. As for waiting until someone else writes about me, I am not sure they would be the proper person to list my credentials. Can you please give me specific information as to why my biography is offensive. Thank you Thomas Calcagni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcalcagni (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an article in OCLC Eastern magazine and when I tried to enter it under references it was deleted. Take Control of How You Communicate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcalcagni (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anybody else written about Calcagni? Have reviews of the book been published? Third-party references are needed to establish notability. Publishing a book is not sufficient by itself. --Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it isn't that it's offensive; it's that it may fail to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion. That's the only question. Suggested reading: WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI. JJL (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

end of text copied from the talk page

It would be nice if there were a review or two of the book, though. --Eastmain (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think that the article in Forward: The OCLC Eastern Magazine (pages 2 to 5 of the PDF) which quotes Calcagni is an adequate claim of notability.

Book Review Would the references be improved if it was noted that the article from the Washington Post was a sidebar from a larger article named [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900760.html Hoping to Rise? Mastering the Elevator Talk.] The article's author Gabe Goldberg actually reviewed the book and published what was printed in the Washington Post as part of his article appearing on page 1 of the Jobs section. Sunday, April 20th --Tcalcagni (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Guest Speaker for Workshop After the article appeared in the Washington Post I was invited to run a workshop for the 40Plus organization. Is this helpful? 4oPlus of Greater Washington --Tcalcagni (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to indicate broader importance; reads like a C.V.  Wikipedia is not "Who's Who In America".  KleenupKrew (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that it's good to know the people who make statements at Congressional hearings. Added ref to that. Novickas (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) ( from US Government Printing Office). Novickas (talk) 23:09, 8 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.