Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Richard Genovese

Classicjupiter2's arguments for deletion contain a bunch of absolutely absurd implications. No support for assertion that it is vanity, willful misunderstanding to the effect that print magazine articles would contain full text on MOMA website, implication that selling your books makes an article about you an advert. Since attempts to establish non-notability of subject look a little shaky given print citations, why not confine ourselves to online sources, so the subject can appear to be more non-notable! Classicjupiter2 has not explained this Googlecentric outlook, the only reason for which appears to be that it produces results more to his liking. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)