Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Bobet 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Ries

Al Ries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also nominating Laura Ries.

Laura Ries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Both articles were created by Heinz1218. Spammy and fail WP:BIO. Vanispamcruftisement. Húsönd 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but certainly re-write. It absolutely pains me to given an endorsement — even a qualified one — to an article that is so obviously a vanity puff piece right now. But the fact of the matter is that Al Ries is legitmately notable in the marketing world. Can we get someone to re-write this thing free off WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues? Mwelch 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both. YechielMan 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Most of what is said is actually suitable, and just needs to be reworded as far as spam/COI is concerned.DGG 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep only if the article is rewritten, and cites references, Delete otherwise. Mayank Abhishek 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The florid, spammy style of this article demands a complete rewrite, hopefully by someone with at least a pretence of NPOV. The external links need to be removed, all spam. Most Some of the internal links go to pages that have similar self-promotional intent. If this person is worthy of an article, someone will write an appropriate one. This ain't it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC). Sorry/added sig --killing sparrows 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: (sighs) I'm with Mwelch. This article, as written, frankly sucks. But even the most casual of research -- which we really ought to be doing before chiming in on AfD debates -- demonstrates that this guy is pretty notable. The reprint edition of his lead book has an Amazon sales rank of 21,000, which is pretty damn good, and the lead reviews on it are from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist. A directed Google search turns up over 144,000 hits, and a casual examination of the lead few dozen sure aren't from blogs. Obviously the article needs serious work and sourcing, but that isn't the province of AfD.  RGTraynor  14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mwelch and RGTraynor. In his field the guy is a heavyweight. The article should be improved, but still it's vastly more informative than Jack Trout's. Stammer 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done some work to excise the vanity stuff, it was hurting my eyes, but it's clear this guy is notable. Arkyan • (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per total rewrite to appropriate style, and I apologize for my overreaction but I hate that type of article!--killing sparrows 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topics. Each meets WP:N. -- Jreferee 21:56, 24 April 2007 (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.