Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Gruber

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 keep. Consensus seems to be that the subject is notable and the new stub is NPOV. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 00:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gruber

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a vanity biography. The only source provided is self-published. There has already been a sock-puppet war over this vanity page. And previous editors have tried to remove this non-notable page with speedy deletion and proposed deletion. The page remains on wikipedia, even though it shouldn't be here. Please let's get rid of this page. Thomrenault (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, eurgh, yes definitely a vanity page and likely autobiography. Bob talk 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Bob talk 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look, I hate the article too, and 90% of it should be deleted. A scholar he isn't - nothing is found at Google Scholar. But according to one link he has sold 7 million books. At Google News Archive he gets what appear to be substantive writeups from the Los Angeles Times (unfortunately behind a paywall), the San Jose Mercury-News, and other publications. The New York Times descibes him as "an S.A.T.-preparation analyst who has published more than a dozen books on the subject." Maybe we need to nuke this article and start over, but I think the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I sliced it down to a sourced stub. Despite the unabashed promotional nature of the original article, I suspect somebody who's published that much in the test-prep business is probably notable. Ray^Talk 02:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I absolutely hate the fact that this article has been stubbed out to ludicrous extreme after being brought to AfD. It's one thing to blow something up to rewrite it, but to blow it up so that we can pass judgment on the structure of the remaining big toe after the body has been vaporized is sort of insulting. Screw it, I'm just going to revert. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At AfD, the idea is to judge whether Wikipedia should have an article on a subject, not whether the current article is the one to have. "Delete and not waste time" is the purpose behind speedy deletion and newpage patrolling. By the time an article gets here, we can usually presume it's worth spending some time on. Not very much time, as you noted from the cut-down job. Ray^Talk 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotional steaming heap. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per MelanieN above, delete without bias to future recreation — done right. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Carrite, I think Ray had a point. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." We are allowed to change and improve articles during AfD, and there's no doubt that Ray's sourced stub was an improvement over the original (as you so well described it) steaming heap. We are supposed to be judging the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Maybe we can convert this heap into useful fertilizer after all! I am going to take the article back to Ray's stub and add a little more, just what I can verify, and then let's see if the improved article is a keeper or not. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the newly-written stub is a massive improvement, although because the author evidently began his own article, I still wonder whether anybody would have bothered otherwise? (How well-known is an author of "test-prep" material going to be?) A very bad test of this is looking at traffic stats, which suggests he got about between 2-10 views per day before it was nominated for deletion. Anyway, whatever the outcome, this is much better; well done Ray and MelanieN. Bob talk 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How well-known is an author of "test-prep" material going to be? Maybe better than you might expect, since all the books have his name in the title: "Gruber's Complete Guide to ..." whatever. Example: Gruber's Complete SAT Guide 2011 (14th edition). --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. MelanieN's new stub is a huge improvement. And articles in the NY Times and SJ Merc should be enough for WP:GNG despite the general unimpressiveness of what can be sourced about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per rational above. Huge improvement on the original. 66.205.171.204 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.