Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero (3rd nomination)

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. Touch call here. I'm going to invent a solution that is hopefully made out of the debate, but explicitly made nowhere within it. I'm going to keep the article, but place an indefinite semi-protection to help prevent libellous stuff from reappearing. Courcelles 03:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Shapero

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

Subject has requested deletion as per OTRS ticket number 2010100610006114. Subject claims the sources are incorrect and is worried about libellous statements posted on the article.

Libel has been removed. Subject still requests deletion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author with only one book, and it's self-published. Also sensible practice of deleting upon request when the subject is of borderline or unclear notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We could rewrite it as an article about the book and move it to Wild Animus. It seemed at the last afd that the notability of the book was stronger than the notability of the author. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I concur that a rewrite and rename could make sense. Yes, the subject has only published one book, but it's the release of same that garnered attention in the press, and is thus notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the first time I have seen someone who is notable for being a self-published author! But he clearly meets WP:GNG based on the quite extensive press coverage. Thparkth (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If OTRS et al. decide to WP:G9 this, that's their choice. Until then, this is an apparently sourced BLP which should be rewritten through normal channels (i.e. the discussion page). However, we can Speedy prune anything not entirely in compliance with WP:BLP. --N Y Kevin @252, i.e. 05:02, 4 November 2010 (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.