Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew arvedon

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. Dakota 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew arvedon

Non-notable writer. Only claim of notability is his book The Experiment which was published by vanity press PublishAmerica. "Andrew arvedon" "the experiment" produces only six Google hits, and his book does not even have an amazon.com SalesRank. PROD tag was removed without explanation by the article's creator. Elmer Clark 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• apparently elmer clark has nothing better to do then ruin peoples lives. Elmer, you say that Publish America is a vanity press, but think again buddy boy your wrong. Publish America buys books from the authors and pays them royalites. Have you written anything that has gotten published? I'd love to read it. If not, back away, and stop trying to ruin a perfectly good author's chance of being noticed. The article I wrote was for Mr. Arvedon to have a page where people who don't know who he is could know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereader07 (talk • contribs) User:Thereader07 also created the page under discussion.
  • Comment If having Wikipedia articles deleted is sufficient to ruin your life, I'd posit that you have bigger problems than whether or not Publish America is a vanity press. Danny Lilithborne 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is not enough evidence that this author satisfies the guidelines of WP:BIO or that his book satisfies the proposed guidelines of WP:BK. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]I am quite sorry (and shocked) if the deletion of this article constitutes ruining your life. Regarding PublishAmerica, take a look at the comment I left on your user pageUser talk:71.127.7.86, which I assume is you not logged in, and the company's article itself. At any rate, regardless of publisher, the fact still stands that this book is not notable by the critera at WP:BOOK. I encourage you to keep working to get your book read, but Wikipedia is not a publicity tool, it is only for subjects that have already achieved a degree of notability. -Elmer Clark 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Without even knowing it, Thereader07 has made the argument for deletion. "...stop trying to ruin a perfectly good author's chance of being noticed." WP is not a place for unknowns to become known. The guidelines on notability are pretty clear.Montco 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Not even close to satisfying WP:BIO. Natalie 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A google of the publishing company brings up an interesting article about other's past run-ins with the publisher. From the Washington Post [1] --Skywolf 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Skywolf. Danny Lilithborne 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thereader07. EVula 04:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. PublishAmerica IS a vanity press, period/full-stop. User:Thereader07 needs to read this article for a vivid demonstration. --Calton | Talk 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. James68 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and suggest that we add to the basic notability guidelines something along the lines of "the more you want to have a Wikipedia article, the less likely it is that you deserve one!" Xtifr _tälk 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Skywolf, et al.--WaltCip 13:38, 27 October 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.