Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Celorio


 * 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.  Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Victor Celorio

 * — (View AfD)

contested prod (removed from article); reason given was "InstaBook PR ad and non-notable bio". Google search backs up assertion that he's NN. Dave6 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I had added the prod after tracking the contribs of editors who were adding InstaBook spam to articles.  This seems to be a commercial agenda. Dicklyon 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this seems to be the guy self-advertising and spamming articles. -- Orange Mike 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete typical BIO/SPAM combo.  SkierRMH, 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not Delete This article pass the search engine test, and the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field and has not spam. 11:10, 15 December 2006 user:BadBull
 * Comment: Please make your recommendation only once. -- Kinu t /c  20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam. A Train take the 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication from WP:RS of any notability per WP:BIO, possible WP:COI and/or WP:SPAM. -- Kinu t /c  20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on what I'm seeing, it appears that Instabook itself may be notable per WP:CORP, and an article on that should be judged on its own merits. However, I've seen nothing indicating that this individual is notable outside of that, and very few of the references cluttering the article currently are about the individual, but rather the company. -- Kinu t /c  13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's primarily an issue of notability, not spam. If he's in the historical record, then references to that record would help establish notability.  Dicklyon 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank's I'll try to fix it. User:BadBull 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Multiple recommendations by User:BadBull struck again. Per WP:AFD, no more than one recommendation per person, please. -- Kinu t /c  02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self published writer with no apparent notability Dragomiloff 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Delete. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, a person is notable if there have been articles and other bibliographic references about him or her that can be verified. Victor Celorio meets that requirement with hundreds of articles about him and his invention. If his invention is what made him notable, this in no way diminishes his accomplishments and/or his notability.

The genesis of the main article was the inclusion by somebody else of Victor Celorio in Wikipedia on a List of Notable Mexicans. My article specifically didn't mention the trademark name (InstaBook) to avoid the appearance of promotion. While it is true that a search of InstaBook will provide more hits, the fact remains that a search for Victor Celorio pulls a significant number of hits as a leader in Print-on-Demand technology, which is a growing segment of the publishing industry.

Therefore I believe that the entry of Victor Celorio meets the criteria set by Wikipedia and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) — Llambert (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. I change my vote, now that evidence of notability is included in the article.  Now if Victor and his friends will take the time to learn wikipedia editing style (start with WP:MOS, and stock deleting the editorial suggestion tags before acting on them, this article can be rescued.  And if they refrain from putting commercial external links on pages other than the InstaBook article itself (if there is one) or the PediaPress article, we shouldn't have much problem about it. Dicklyon 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Delete. He is notable as a pioneer in the fledgling 'Books on Demand' field. He has patents as well as business operations in that arena. A google search turns up a bunch of hits on him as well as his company. The article is neutral and does not violate any copyrights that I see. Please keep it.--JustKeith 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Kperkins411 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak keep. Changing my vote as well, as the sources seem to establish verifiability and notability for InstaBook, and Victor Celorio founded the company.  My concern, however, is that the articles don't seem to say much about him other than "Victor Celorio founded Instabook", so perhaps we should be putting this information into InstaBook and redirecting this page there.  (By the way, I'm not convinced that his books are at all notable; they all have Amazon sales ranks over 4 million, and that's the ones that even have a sales rank.  I would imagine it's not hard for the founder of a company that prints books on demand to get his books published.) Dave6 08:57, 19 December 2006 (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.